Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community forums. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Christian Fellowship Community Forums

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
adssolsn

Is immersion necessary for baptism?

Recommended Posts

Hi good people, i was born in a catholic family hence i was baptized in catholic church.

Am now grown up ănd fellowshiping in a different church where they believe One must be immersed during baptism.

what do you people think; Do i need to be immersed or should i Stick to the baptism i was given in the catholic church?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In general the Anglican church recognises Catholic baptism and vice versa, as long as it was performed in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

 

Have you spoken to your pastor or vicar about this? If you don't feel baptised, or as though you need a second baptism into the church of your adult choice instead of the church of your birth, then he can give you guidance on how to proceed. He could also tell you whether your baptism is counted by your current church. Perhaps you should be looking at confirmation into the new church instead of a second baptism, depending on your church's belief?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus was baptized by immersion.

 

In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. (Mark 1:9-10)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
Jesus was baptized by immersion.

 

In those days Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens being torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. (Mark 1:9-10)

 

G'day Theo,

 

That Scripture doesn't say Jesus was immersed. He could have been standing in knee high water and sprinkled or poured over, and "coming up out of the water" could of referred to the river or its embankment.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
He could have been standing in knee high water and sprinkled or poured over, and "coming up out of the water" could of referred to the river or its embankment.

Unless he was being baptized by immersion there would have been no reason for him to get into the river at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi good people, i was born in a catholic family hence i was baptized in catholic church.

Am now grown up ănd fellowshiping in a different church where they believe One must be immersed during baptism.

what do you people think; Do i need to be immersed or should i Stick to the baptism i was given in the catholic church?

 

I feel that this is more of a question on whether you'd be accepted into that church without receiving their own way of baptism...to which I would answer "when in Rome, do as the Romans".

Baptism is not just about the ritual itself but also being introduced and embraced by a community of people. After all you said you've been baptized in a catholic church, so there's not the issue of salvation, like a non-baptized person would have. Just because the way that they perform a baptism is slightly different that what you received, it doesn't mean it's less effective.

So it's more of a personal choice...in my opinion, if you feel that you want to connect on a deeper level with these people, adapting to their pracices would be a good start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I feel that this is more of a question on whether you'd be accepted into that church without receiving their own way of baptism...to which I would answer "when in Rome, do as the Romans".

Baptism is not just about the ritual itself but also being introduced and embraced by a community of people. After all you said you've been baptized in a catholic church, so there's not the issue of salvation, like a non-baptized person would have. Just because the way that they perform a baptism is slightly different that what you received, it doesn't mean it's less effective.

So it's more of a personal choice...in my opinion, if you feel that you want to connect on a deeper level with these people, adapting to their pracices would be a good start.

 

It's not even connecting with people. And to tell the truth I don't have a problem with immersion but I don't like how people insist on something without having a real reason.

It sounds like they just want to mark their territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not even connecting with people. And to tell the truth I don't have a problem with immersion but I don't like how people insist on something without having a real reason.

It sounds like they just want to mark their territory.

First, let me state in clear terms that it is not an issue that salvation hangs on. A person can be sprinkled as an infant and be saved by the Blood of Christ. A person can have water poured over his head as a teen and be saved by the Blood of Christ. A person can be immersed in a baptismal pool or a swimming pool or a local river and be saved by the Blood of Christ. The Bible even records a man nailed to a cross next to Jesus and unable to be sprinkled, poured or immersed being saved by the Blood of Christ.

 

With that out of the way, the question is more than nothing. At the heart is what you (and the body of believers that you fellowship with) believe that baptism is, does and represents. For Catholics and Lutherans and my Presbyterian brothers, sprinkling or pouring water on a baby represents, signifies, introduces the newest member into the covenant of the Lord. At that point you become part of the people of God, just as the Israelites were God's chosen people in the Old Testement. It falls for you to later grow into a mature faith and choose to become a full member (with whatever ceremony and ritual that entails for that particular body of believers).

 

For our Baptist brothers, baptism represents something very different. They look to verses like the command to repent and be baptized and talk of being baptized into Christ's death, burial and Resurection and they apply that literally to adult baptism. For them, baptism is the ceremony of personal admission into the Body of Christ. It is the moment you proclaim that you belong to Jesus and are His disciple. So sprinkling or pouring do not equate burial and resurrection the way that immersion does.

 

So you you have two personal questions to answer.

1. What do you believe baptism is for you and what do you want it to represent for you?

2. What does your local body of believers teach about it and what message do you want to send to them?

 

Edited by atpollard
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

Unless he was being baptized by immersion there would have been no reason for him to get into the river at all.

 

You mean going down to the water to have the water poured or sprinkled makes no sense? The Scripture doesn't say Jesus was immersed in the river. Again, he could have came up from the river and its embankment. John could have poured water over him or sprinkled Him there while Jesus was on the edge of its shore. It makes more sense than for John to have to walk back and forth carrying a pail of water to everyone, Jesus wasn't the only one being baptized that day. Read Exodus 14:29 "But the children of Israel walked on dry land in the midst of the sea." They were "in the sea" and "on dry land" and "The clouds poured out water." The word of God calls this baptism, for it says, "and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized" 1 Corinthians 10:2. Does not reason teach us here that God baptized by pouring?

 

To answer the OP, no immersion is not necessary. "Some," say baptism only represents regeneration, and if that be the case, then, Ezekiel 36:25-27 would be a more accurate depiction of the imagery:

 

25I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. 26 And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. 27 And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules.[a]

 

From a Covenant perspective water is the sign seal and mark of baptism. No amount is specified.

 

What clearly is a preference some are making into tradition.

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:4)

 

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. (Colossians 2:11,12)

 

Immersion is the only mode of baptism that can serve as a picture of burial.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:4)

 

In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ,having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. (Colossians 2:11,12)

 

Immersion is the only mode of baptism that can serve as a picture of burial.

 

First, it is amazing what our Baptist brethren choose to see and not see in Colossians 2:11-12! :) Baptism itself hardly amounts to being actually buried in the earth or placed in a tomb! Not to mention baptist ignore the parallel Paul is making to circumcision, the sign, seal, and mark of the OT Covenant to water baptism - the sign, seal, and mark of the NT Covenant, a sign, seal, and mark given to infants. Acts 2:38, 39 also links circumcision and baptism. In Acts 2:38 the Apostle Peter calls for repentance, faith in Christ and baptism by Jews who are hearing his preaching. In v.39 he gives the reason for this action: “the promise is to you and to your children, and all who are far off….” The Apostle Peter consciously uses the same formula in his preaching as the LORD himself used when he instituted the sign of circumcision in Genesis 17, which the Jews listening understood precisely.

 

Second, by simply immersing a hand or fingers into water and transferring the baptismal waters by sprinkling on the recipient of baptism demonstrates the process of cleansing, the properties of water with Christ's burial and resurrection (The emphasis is not on dipping or immersing or on sprinkling or pouring, but on the process of identifying the one baptized with a cleansing provided by God himself). Similarly, we should understand that when Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, he went “to” the water, dipped his hand into it, and sprinkled the eunuch, identifying him with the Messiah and his cleansing work (see Isaiah 52:15, a passage that the eunuch would have just been reading, cf. Acts 8:30, 33). Or, they may have stepped into and out of the water, without anyone being immersed. As for your references to the baptized ones going into and coming out of the water please refer to passages such as Matthew 3:16, Mark 1:10, and Acts 8:38-39. But doesn't that prove immersion? No, the Greek prepositions translated “into” and “out of” may also mean “to,” “toward,” or “unto,” and “from” or “away from.” In fact, in Acts 8, the Greek preposition eis is used eleven times, but only once (vs. 38) is it commonly translated “into.” In verses 3, 5, 16, 25, 26, 27, and 40, it is best translated as “to.”

 

Biblical baptisms have the effect of identifying the one baptized with someone or something else (e.g., Matt. 28:19; 1 Cor. 1:13; 10:2). When one receives New Testament baptism, that person is identified with Christ in his life, death, resurrection, and reign. (That is why the New Testament often refers to Christians as being “in Christ.”) The one baptized is, by virtue of God's covenant, identified with Christ, so that the person comes under the controlling influence of the only Redeemer of God's elect.

 

 

Our friends who maintain that baptism requires immersion are not only making a false assertion, based on the incorrect assumption that baptizo and bapto mean the same thing, but are also binding people to believe something that is not given in Holy Scripture. That is a serious error (see Deuteronomy 4:2). It is precisely because we really do believe what the Bible says about the way baptism is to be administered that we do not insist upon immersion as the mode of baptism, but maintain, rather, that it is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person. The word baptize does not mean “immerse”. Those who maintain that the Greek verb bapto means “to dip or immerse” are generally correct. (For example, the term is used in the Old Testament, as it is in classical Greek, for dipping hyssop or a finger in the blood used for sacrifice [e.g., Ex. 12:22; Lev. 4:6, 17; 9:9] or dipping one's feet in the Jordan River [e.g., Josh. 3:15].) However, our word baptize translates the Greek word baptizo, not bapto. While bapto may mean “to dip or immerse,” baptizo does not refer to a mode, but to a process and an effect. While a baptism may include dipping or immersing, baptizo does not, in itself, mean “to immerse.”

 

 

Old Testament Baptisms

 

Biblical baptisms focus on both purification (either actual or ceremonial) and identification. Most people (including your Baptist friends) are probably unaware of the fact that there were baptisms in the Old Testament. Hebrews 9:10 speaks of “various baptisms” (often translated “various washings”) that were part of the Old Testament economy. The writer refers to three of these ceremonial baptisms in verses 13, 19, and 21. In each verse (together with their Old Testament references), there is a clear picture of the process and the effect that constituted an Old Testament baptism.

 

In verse 13, the writer speaks of a baptism in which “the blood of bulls and goats and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies for the purifying of the flesh.” This refers to Numbers 19:17, 18. Here a clean person takes hyssop, dips it in a vessel filled with water and the ashes of a heifer that has been used as a sacrifice, and then sprinkles it on those persons or things that are to be cleansed ceremonially.

 

In Hebrews 9:19, we read that Moses “took the blood of calves and goats, with water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people.” This refers to Exodus 24:6, 8, where again we see that the process of an Old Testament baptism was to dip the hyssop and wool into the blood and sprinkle it as a means of ceremonial purification.

 

Finally, in Hebrews 9:21, there is a description of a process by which Moses “sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry.” Leviticus 8:19 and 16:14, 16 provide the background for this Old Testament baptism. The priest was to dip his finger in the blood of a bull used for sacrifice, and then sprinkle the blood on the mercy seat (representing atonement). This was a ceremonial means of removing the uncleanness of the children of Israel.

 

In every case the process of baptism included a dipping of the instrument used to baptize into a substance such as blood or water. The instrument was then used to sprinkle the person(s) or thing(s) to be baptized. This process had the effect of identifying the substance used for the baptism with that which was baptized. As a result, the people were regarded as ceremonially cleansed by that substance. The baptism was not the dipping, but the process of dipping and sprinkling according to God's order.

 

The emphasis of these Old Testament baptisms was not on the mode of baptism, but on the effect: cleansing or purification. These baptisms did not represent something that people did, but something that God did in providing a cleansing from sin and guilt. Baptisms were his means of ceremonially providing such purification.

 

 

New Testament Baptisms

 

By now your Baptist friends may be somewhat upset. “But what does all of this have to do with baptism in the New Testament?” they will ask.

 

You might point out to them that the New Testament builds on the Old, and that it is important that we always define our terms biblically. (Besides, the book of Hebrews is in the New Testament!) Hebrews 9 (and the fuller Old Testament passages to which it refers) clearly describes baptisms. When New Testament baptisms are introduced, they are linked with these Old Testament baptisms.

 

For example, the debate between John's disciples and the Jews in John 3:22,26 focuses on “purification” (vs. 25). New Testament baptisms, like the Old Testament ones, were understood as purification rites. The process of baptizing would certainly be the same in the New Testament baptisms as in the Old Testament baptisms, except, of course, that the only element used in New Testament baptisms was water (see vs. 23). (Incidentally, the “much water” [or “many waters”] mentioned in this verse may well have been the “flowing water” (NASB) [or “living water”] mentioned in Numbers 19:17.)

 

In New Testament baptisms, then, the process of applying water to someone identifies the person baptized with the cleansing properties of the water. The emphasis is not on dipping or immersing (or on sprinkling or pouring), but on the process of identifying the one baptized with a cleansing provided by God himself.

 

This is why the Westminster Confession of Faith (28.3) correctly states that “dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.” There is no clear example of a person being baptized by immersion in the New Testament, but there is a biblical pattern for a minister baptizing by dipping his hand (or a utensil) in water and sprinkling (or pouring) that water on the one to be baptized. Baptisms in a Presbyterian church simply follow the pattern of baptisms described in the Scriptures.

 

Reference: William Shishko OPC

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Similarly, we should understand that when Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch, he went “to” the water, dipped his hand into it, and sprinkled the eunuch, identifying him with the Messiah and his cleansing work (see Isaiah 52:15, a passage that the eunuch would have just been reading, cf. Acts 8:30, 33).

 

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)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@William

@theophilus

I just wanted to thak you both for a Christian disagreement on the interpretation of scripture. I just encountered this same topic where one who dared to diagree with the Lutheran Church was accused of rejecting Jesus as Savior among other insane accusations. Words really cannot express how much this place means and just how frustrating the alternatives are. So thank you both for disagreeing like Brothers in Christ.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First, it is amazing what our Baptist brethren choose to see and not see in Colossians 2:11-12! :) Baptism itself hardly amounts to being actually buried in the earth or placed in a tomb! Not to mention baptist ignore the parallel Paul is making to circumcision, the sign, seal, and mark of the OT Covenant to water baptism - the sign, seal, and mark of the NT Covenant, a sign, seal, and mark given to infants. Acts 2:38, 39 also links circumcision and baptism. In Acts 2:38 the Apostle Peter calls for repentance, faith in Christ and baptism by Jews who are hearing his preaching. In v.39 he gives the reason for this action: “the promise is to you and to your children, and all who are far off….” The Apostle Peter consciously uses the same formula in his preaching as the LORD himself used when he instituted the sign of circumcision in Genesis 17, which the Jews listening understood precisely.

It is also fascinating what our Presbyterian brethren choose to see and not see in Acts 2:38-39. They can so clearly divine that the promise "to you and to your children, and all who are far off" cannot possibly mean when they reach the age of understanding and can decide for themselves, yet they seem unable to notice that the command is to "Repent and be baptized every one of you". Have your infants repented? If you are to rely on the infant baptism as your one and only baptism, are you certain that you have obeyed what was actually commanded? Did you "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins"? :)

 

(PS. Yes, adult baptism by immersion really can be an amazing event. Words fail to describe it.)

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
@William

@theophilus

I just wanted to thak you both for a Christian disagreement on the interpretation of scripture. I just encountered this same topic where one who dared to diagree with the Lutheran Church was accused of rejecting Jesus as Savior among other insane accusations. Words really cannot express how much this place means and just how frustrating the alternatives are. So thank you both for disagreeing like Brothers in Christ.

HERE! HERE! I second that. Great job and many thanks to Theophilus and William.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

It is also fascinating what our Presbyterian brethren choose to see and not see in Acts 2:38-39. They can so clearly divine that the promise "to you and to your children, and all who are far off" cannot possibly mean when they reach the age of understanding and can decide for themselves, yet they seem unable to notice that the command is to "Repent and be baptized every one of you". Have your infants repented? If you are to rely on the infant baptism as your one and only baptism, are you certain that you have obeyed what was actually commanded? Did you "Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins"? :)

 

(PS. Yes, adult baptism by immersion really can be an amazing event. Words fail to describe it.)

 

Just to clarify, you're suggesting that the clear Scriptures made to a peoples that are not only familiar with the Covenant language but also are hearing the explicit parallels to past Covenants, and with no explicit exclusion of children from the Old to the New Covenant now should omit infants from the New Covenant? That is a very important piece of information that was never made from Scripture!

 

It is not just the explicit statement made in Acts 2:38-39 but multiple allusions, parallels and familiar Covenant language, and previous Covenants that included children.

 

Romans 4:1–8, 13–25 teaches that Abraham was justified by grace alone, through faith alone and not by works and yet God required that Abraham take the sign (mark) of circumcision. Romans 4:11 says that circumcision was a sign and a seal of “the righteousness that he (Abraham) had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.” Circumcision was a sign of God’s covenantal relationship to Abraham and to Abraham’s children, all who believe in Christ. The meaning of circumcision was spiritual and not just outward. Circumcision as a sign of faith and entrance into the covenant people as a member was also applied to children.

 

There's no argument that Peter commanded those that were heads of households to Repent and be baptized, the argument is whether children were now excluded from silence, despite the clear Covenant language to a peoples in a Covenant already that included children.

 

Acts 2:38, 39 says,

  • Repent and be baptized every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, so that your sins may be forgiven and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and for your children and for many who are-for all whom the Lord our God will call.

For adult converts, baptism is a sign of what Christ has done for them, forgiven them and washed them. Adult converts are baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Forgiveness is through faith in Christ. Baptism is a sign of our new standing with God through faith. Notice, v.39 “The promise (of salvation to those who believe) is for you and for your children.”

 

Our faith is in the Christ who died for us. Like circumcision, baptism is a sign of being united to him in his death by faith. Peter says that the flood waters of Noah symbolize baptism, because baptism is a sign of dying to sin, the washing away of sin by Christ’s blood, and living by faith in Christ.

 

Everyone, (adults and children), who has been baptized must be united by faith to Christ for salvation. Unbaptized, adult converts, profess their faith before baptism. Children of believers who received the sign in infancy profess their faith as soon as they are able. Both are responsible before God to be faithful to the grace represented by the sign and seal they have received.

 

That, however, has
always
been true. No one has ever been accepted by God except by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. Christ and his benefits were illustrated by a forward-looking sign and seal under Abraham, Moses, David, and the prophets. In Christ the fulfillment has come and we no longer have need of the bloody illustration. It has been fulfilled and replaced by an unbloody, sign and seal that looks back to Christ’s finished work. The promise that God made to Abraham, however, is explicitly
repeated
in the New Covenant by the Apostle Peter. Therefore that promise (the promise is to you and to your children) does not belong to the illustration (Abraham, Moses
et al
) only. Rather, the promise is
also
part of the covenant of grace. The administration of the promise included adults and children under Abraham and, according to Peter, it includes them in the New Covenant as well. This is why the Apostle Paul links circumcision and baptism via Christ’s death.

 

 

 

I think what we have here, is a starting point from those familiar with the previous Covenant, its language and understanding, and now our Baptist brethren today who reject any continuity between the Covenants :)

 

As to your last question, children that received the sign, seal, and mark of the New covenant no more repented before receiving it then the children of the Old Covenant. That is, children of Covenant, a Covenant made with their father(s) which included them at an age of eight days young.

 

God bless,

William

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The great irony, is that I really do like the concept of the covenant. I just find the link between sprinkling a baby and circumcising a baby disturbing. It is hard to place a finger on what about it bothers me. I am not a dispensationalist at heart, so it is not the thought that there is a great gulf between the old and new covenants and how God saves. It is something more subtle than that.

 

I suppose on one level, there were three groups in Jesus' day who were keen of making sure that all of the rituals of the OT Law were preserved ... the Pharisees, the Sadducee and the Judiaizers. There were two key figures who opposed those groups and their legalistic efforts at every turn ... Jesus (Lord of the Sabbath) and Paul (a Jew's Jew). Your determination to preserve every dot and tittle of the ritual makes me nervous. I can find no fault with it that I would be willing to call error. Yet there are aspects of your methodology of building support that make me uncomfortable.

 

The clear part of Acts 2, applies to only some, but the part of Acts 2 that could be legitimately interpreted either way applies to all ... that rubs against my fur.

Everything about the new covenant is spiritual and Christ Centered, except infant baptism ... which is physical water like the physical circumcision, even though admission to the new covenant is by a circumcision of the heart which cannot be done by the hand of man.

Baptism symbolizes our burial and resurrection with Christ ... except it CANNOT be done by immersion and was always meant to be done by sprinkling ... even when people went into and came out of a river to do it. What you propose is plausible, but a far weaker visual imagery than the traditional Baptist interpretation.

 

Experientially, there is a power in making a public profession of salvation through a public baptism by immersion. It is a part of the life of the church community and something that has been lost and ... if you are indeed correct ... something whose loss should be mourned. The body is poorer for the loss of adult baptism by immersion.

 

I am prepared to welcome infants into the church. I am happy to sprinkle them. I am reluctantly even willing to call that 'baptism'.

I cannot accept, in my heart, that 'baptism' is the fulfillment of the call that Peter gave to "every one of you, and and to your children, and all who are far off" to "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." That requires a personal decision. I cannot abandon what I read for an OT tradition grafted onto a new covenant.

 

I wish that I could. It would make my life so much simpler. ... "Here I stand. I can do no other."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
The great irony, is that I really do like the concept of the covenant. I just find the link between sprinkling a baby and circumcising a baby disturbing. It is hard to place a finger on what about it bothers me. I am not a dispensationalist at heart, so it is not the thought that there is a great gulf between the old and new covenants and how God saves. It is something more subtle than that.

 

I suppose on one level, there were three groups in Jesus' day who were keen of making sure that all of the rituals of the OT Law were preserved ... the Pharisees, the Sadducee and the Judiaizers. There were two key figures who opposed those groups and their legalistic efforts at every turn ... Jesus (Lord of the Sabbath) and Paul (a Jew's Jew). Your determination to preserve every dot and tittle of the ritual makes me nervous. I can find no fault with it that I would be willing to call error. Yet there are aspects of your methodology of building support that make me uncomfortable.

 

The clear part of Acts 2, applies to only some, but the part of Acts 2 that could be legitimately interpreted either way applies to all ... that rubs against my fur.

Everything about the new covenant is spiritual and Christ Centered, except infant baptism ... which is physical water like the physical circumcision, even though admission to the new covenant is by a circumcision of the heart which cannot be done by the hand of man.

Baptism symbolizes our burial and resurrection with Christ ... except it CANNOT be done by immersion and was always meant to be done by sprinkling ... even when people went into and came out of a river to do it. What you propose is plausible, but a far weaker visual imagery than the traditional Baptist interpretation.

 

Experientially, there is a power in making a public profession of salvation through a public baptism by immersion. It is a part of the life of the church community and something that has been lost and ... if you are indeed correct ... something whose loss should be mourned. The body is poorer for the loss of adult baptism by immersion.

 

I am prepared to welcome infants into the church. I am happy to sprinkle them. I am reluctantly even willing to call that 'baptism'.

I cannot accept, in my heart, that 'baptism' is the fulfillment of the call that Peter gave to "every one of you, and and to your children, and all who are far off" to "Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." That requires a personal decision. I cannot abandon what I read for an OT tradition grafted onto a new covenant.

 

I wish that I could. It would make my life so much simpler. ... "Here I stand. I can do no other."

 

Faith is now made a prerequisite for the Covenant of Grace. Now we are Baptist.

 

This comes as no surprise to me. Given the difference in hermeneutics between Baptist and Reformed. My past experience in simply trying to draw from the allusion of John 1 and Genesis chapter 1 and failing with Baptist brethren leads me to withdraw from the discussion. The question is whether we can infer from the Scriptures and draw from allusions made from paralleling Covenants. If not, then even the allusion from John 1 to Genesis chapter 1 cannot be made. To me, the question is whether the inference contradicts what is explicitly stated or not. I do not believe it does. This comes down to what does Scripture say vs any inference or logical systematic approach to Scripture which ironically, most Baptist reject. Calvinism is a tough cookie to swallow for the Baptist on the same grounds. To us, the answer is yes, to them the answer is no.

 

I do not expect this kind of discussion to go easy, one must reject Covenant theology altogether from this point. Because, the sign seal and mark is being denied. My friends, this is why Particular Baptist are not considered Reformed. Arguably, they are not even Protestant. A different breed altogether that will not withdraw a foot from their Baptist roots though they may reason forward to the Protestant/Reformed doctrines but stop short.

 

Not being cynical, just expressing my own personal opinion without the intent of offending.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Faith is now made a prerequisite for the Covenant of Grace. Now we are Baptist.

 

This comes to no surprise to me. Given the difference in hermeneutics between Baptist and Reformed. My past experience in simply trying to draw from the allusion of John 1 and Genesis chapter 1 and failing with Baptist brethren leads me to withdraw from the discussion. The question is whether we can infer from the Scriptures and draw from allusions made from paralleling Covenants. If not, then even the allusion from John 1 to Genesis chapter 1 cannot be made. To me, the question is whether the inference contradicts what is explicitly stated or not. I do not believe it does. This comes down to what does Scripture say vs any inference or logical systematic approach to Scripture which ironically, most Baptist reject. Calvinism is a tough cookie to swallow for the Baptist on the same grounds. To us, the answer is yes, to them the answer is no.

 

I do not expect this kind of discussion to go easy, one must reject Covenant theology altogether from this point. Because, the sign seal and mark is being denied. My friends, this is why Particular Baptist are not considered Reformed. Arguably, they are not even Protestant. A different breed altogether that will not withdraw a foot from their Baptist roots though they may reason forward to the Protestant/Reformed doctrines but stop short.

 

Not being cynical, just expressing my own personal opinion without the intent of offending.

 

God bless,

William

 

I don't want to rain on your parade, but I am a "Reformed Baptist" (at least according to an on-line survey). So I hold to the 5 points of Calvinism (since Calvinism is really about Sotierology), without accepting his views on other topics.

 

Faith IS a prerequisite for the Covenant of Grace ... fortunately, God supplies the Faith and the Grace, so it is not as big of an issue as it might seem. Since the Holy Spirit is a deposit guaranteeing the inheritance, a baby or adult cannot get the HS if he is not one of the elect. Peter spoke of truly being in the covenant of Grace, not just taking it for a test drive. A Jew was always a Jew. There were blessings and curses. A baby or adult isn't saved until God says they are saved. You taught me the word "monergism".

 

If you told me they were not even 'Protestant', you would probably get some disagreement ...

 

John Bunyan (1628–88) - author

John Gill (1697–1771) - theologian

William Carey (1761–1834) - missionary

Charles Spurgeon (1834–92) - pastor

Albert Mohler - president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

John Piper - pastor, author

 

... none of these men are Protestants? :)

They are all considered Reformed (Calvinist) Baptists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

 

I don't want to rain on your parade, but I am a "Reformed Baptist" (at least according to an on-line survey). So I hold to the 5 points of Calvinism (since Calvinism is really about Sotierology), without accepting his views on other topics.

 

Faith IS a prerequisite for the Covenant of Grace ... fortunately, God supplies the Faith and the Grace, so it is not as big of an issue as it might seem. Since the Holy Spirit is a deposit guaranteeing the inheritance, a baby or adult cannot get the HS if he is not one of the elect. Peter spoke of truly being in the covenant of Grace, not just taking it for a test drive. A Jew was always a Jew. There were blessings and curses. A baby or adult isn't saved until God says they are saved. You taught me the word "monergism".

 

If you told me they were not even 'Protestant', you would probably get some disagreement ...

 

John Bunyan (1628–88) - author

John Gill (1697–1771) - theologian

William Carey (1761–1834) - missionary

Charles Spurgeon (1834–92) - pastor

Albert Mohler - president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

John Piper - pastor, author

 

... none of these men are Protestants? :)

They are all considered Reformed (Calvinist) Baptists.

 

I'm not going to argue with you on your point that faith is a prerequisite to the Covenant of Grace. But the topic has some relevance because your view is exactly why Baptist reject the catholic church, and do not believe in a Visible and Invisible/Spiritual Church. Protestants date from the sixteenth century. They are the Lutherans, the Reformed, and others who were once Roman Catholics and left the Roman Catholic faith to start denominations of their own. The Baptists never left the Roman Catholic church as did Luther, Calvin and Zwingli. They never left because they were never in. The Baptist began with the Ana-Baptist, and not the universal catholic Church.

 

As far as Baptist identifying as Protestant do they even know for sure? For sure the ones you listed are "Particular" Baptist, you can do a quick Google search, even from the mouth of Spurgeon who coined the term Particular Baptist. As for Piper, I wouldn't even know how to classify him but as a Charismatic anomaly. Kinda interesting, as my personal preference is not to rely or use any of those men you listed for reference.

 

The term Reformed is not being used classically which includes more than just Calvinism. And surely not Protestant if they are considered so. Call some Baptist Reformed and you're going to receive an earful from Reformed/Presbyterians, and call Baptist Protestant and you're going to get an earful from Lutherans.

 

https://baptistnews.com/article/are-.../#.WQjS3sa1tPY

http://baptisthistoryhomepage.com/ch....not.prot.html

http://www.baptistbasics.org/baptists/b007.php

http://baptistbulletin.org/the-bapti...tist-theology/

 

Found an interesting but familiar perspective from a Baptist:

 

Doctrinally Baptists Are Not Protestants

 

The viewpoint that Baptists share common doctrinal ground with Protestant groups is not an accurate reporting of the facts. There are six striking differences.

Baptists believe with all their hearts that God's Word alone is sufficient for faith and practice. We read "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine..." (II Timothy 3:16). Various Protestant denominations have creeds, catechisms and assorted doctrinal standards. Baptists hold to the Bible alone.

 

From the review of these simple points it is more than clear that doctrinally Baptists are not Protestants.

 

Baptists believe that Christ and only Christ is the Head of the Church even as the Scripture says, "Christ is the head of the church" (Ephesians 5:23). There is no man who has the oversight of Baptist churches. Baptists have no denomination in the sense of an organization that controls local congregations. Each local church is autonomous and accountable only to Christ, who is its Head. A Baptist church, while fellowshipping with congregations of like faith and practice, has no earthly headquarters. Its headquarters is in Heaven.

 

Baptists believe from their hearts in a free church in a free state. Christ plainly taught that the state and the church each had its own realm when he said, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things which are God's" (Matthew 22:21 ). Baptists are vigorously opposed to union of state and church and believe that a state controlled church is a wretched excuse for Christianity and a plain departure from Scripture. All of the Protestant Reformers fastened state churches upon their followers.

 

Baptists believe strongly in individual accountability to God because the Scriptures clearly teach that "every one of us shall give account of himself to God" (Romans 14:12). A priest cannot answer for you, a church cannot answer for you to God. God-parents cannot answer for you. No one is saved because of what his parents believe. No one is ,saved because of his identification with any religion. He will account for himself to God. Protestants .generally do not hold this scriptural doctrine.

 

Baptist people furthermore have always held to believers' baptism. None of the Protestant Reformers held this Bible teaching. In the Scriptures, faith and repentance always preceded baptism. On the day of Pentecost Peter plainly told the people, "Repent and be baptized" (Acts 2:38). This obviously means that there is no infant baptism since infants are incapable of repenting. No unbelievers are to be baptized. The Reformers followed Rome in their teaching on baptism. Baptists have held steadfastly to the doctrine of Christ and His Apostles on this point.

 

Baptist people furthermore have always held to believers' baptism. None of the Protestant Reformers held this Bible teaching. In the Scriptures, faith and repentance always preceded baptism. On the day of Pentecost Peter plainly told the people, "Repent and be baptized" (Acts 2:38). This obviously means that there is no infant baptism since infants are incapable of repenting. No unbelievers are to be baptized. The Reformers followed Rome in their teaching on baptism. Baptists have held steadfastly to the doctrine of Christ and His Apostles on this point.

 

Baptists, on the basis of Scripture, have always held to a regenerate church membership; that is, a membership that is made up only of people who give a credible profession of faith in Christ. In the apostolic church, only those who became believers, those who received the Word of God and who had repented of their sins, were baptized and received as church members (Acts 2:41). There was no automatic or formalistic membership in apostolic churches nor in Baptist churches today.

 

A few simple observations indicate that the Baptists differ radically from Protestants on a number of points.

 

The Protestant groups look to some human being as their founder, often even taking their name from a man. The Lutherans hark back to Luther. The Reformed look to John Calvin. The Presbyterians were rounded by John Knox. The Methodists openly acknowledge John Wesley as their founder. Who rounded the Baptist churches? Here is a historical question worthy of serious investigation. It is impossible to find any one man who gave rise to Baptist churches. Rather, if we would name human founders, we must look back to Peter, Paul, James and John.

 

We differ from Protestants in our birthplace. Lutherans came from Germany, the Reformed from Switzerland and the Netherlands, the Presbyterians from Scotland, Episcopalians from England, but Baptists would have to give Palestine as their place of origin.

 

Furthermore, the creed of Baptists is not the Augsburg Confession, the Canons of Dort, or the Westminster Confession, but the simple Word of God. So it is impossible to identify Baptists as Protestants.

 

Baptists have never been linked with Protestants and have never been identified with the Roman Catholic Church. Through the years before and after the Reformation, they have maintained their identity and been faithful to the Scriptures. Real Baptists hold to the plain teaching of Christ and the Apostles. For these God-given doctrines they have been willing to die. Hanz Denk, a sixteenth century Baptist, said, "Faith means obedience to the Word of God, whether it be unto life or unto death." For many it was death.

 

In Rottenburg in Reformation times there were 900 executions of Baptists in less than ten years. These deaths were often vicious and cruel. The sentence for one Baptist believer, Michael Sateler, read:

 

"Michael Sateler shall be delivered to the hangman, who shall take him to the place of execution and cut out his tongue; he shall then throw him on a cart and twice tare his flesh with hot tongs; then he shall bring him to the city gate and there torture his flesh in the same manner."

 

This was the way Sateler died in Rottenburg on May 21, 1527. His wife and other women were drowned and a number of the men were beheaded.

 

Baptists are not Protestants but hold tenaciously to the original precepts and practices of Christ and the apostles. Baptists believe the pure Word of God to be sufficient authority on all matters. Baptists reject all human religious traditions and practices that have originated since the time of the apostles.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings from the Lutheran point of view. We baptise by sprinkling or pouring, although immersion is also valid. Any baptism is, so long as it is done in the name of the Triune God. This would reject Jehovah's Witnesses and LDS Mormons, for example, and Oneness Pentecostals.

 

Are Baptists Protestant? In a broad sense, yes. Insofar as they believe in the Trinity, and have a generally orthodox understanding of the Person of Christ, they are. However, insofar as they reject the creedal statements of Classical Christianity, they are not. The Classical Protestants in the world are the Lutherans, the Calvinists, the Anglicans, and the Methodists. Outside of that, things start getting less and less orthodox.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
Greetings from the Lutheran point of view. We baptise by sprinkling or pouring, although immersion is also valid. Any baptism is, so long as it is done in the name of the Triune God. This would reject Jehovah's Witnesses and LDS Mormons, for example, and Oneness Pentecostals.

 

Are Baptists Protestant? In a broad sense, yes. Insofar as they believe in the Trinity, and have a generally orthodox understanding of the Person of Christ, they are. However, insofar as they reject the creedal statements of Classical Christianity, they are not. The Classical Protestants in the world are the Lutherans, the Calvinists, the Anglicans, and the Methodists. Outside of that, things start getting less and less orthodox.

 

Fair enough, Diego. A Lutheran perspective is always welcome.

 

First I do not know where it came from, but Presbyterians also accept any baptism done as long as it is done in the name of the Triune God. No mode of baptism is particularly required though. And surely, if someone has been baptized as an infant or a bible believing church then it is unnecessary and generally frowned upon to re-baptize.

 

And also I acknowledge that by "today's usage" a lot of churches are considered "Protestant". Though, given your definition of Protestant even Roman Catholics could be considered so. I think Protestant does encompass the ecumenical creeds as well as do Catholics, and is why I rejected the Baptist from a classical definition of Protestant. No doubt, I consider them Christian. Whether they are at times a Christian Sect or Cult is to be discerned.

 

I have no problem nor the time to debate whether Baptist are Protestant, but say this, reluctantly, because I know that it'll create major controversy by calling out most of the independent run "Baptist" and non denominational churches a cult. Because we start getting into a really sticky situation when churches have abandoned the classical Protestant creeds. It becomes an individual case by case basis in determining whether a person is a cultist or Protestant. All this could be avoided if they agreed to the simple truths as conveyed in the ecumenical creeds.

 

As far as Reformed, I define it as: Catholic (universal) Protestant as well as Systematic. And it is a broad term that encompasses not only Five Solae, but also Calvinism, Covenant Theology, Cessationalism, and Amillennialism. In other words, just because someone adheres to Calvinism doesn't mean that they are Reformed. There's an entire expanse of doctrine outside of Calvinism in the Reformed church. But I do acknowledge today's common usage of the word Reformed, I'm just making my case that what is considered Reformed today is not by its classical definition or doctrines.

 

God bless,

William

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi good people, i was born in a catholic family hence i was baptized in catholic church.

Am now grown up ănd fellowshiping in a different church where they believe One must be immersed during baptism.

what do you people think; Do i need to be immersed or should i Stick to the baptism i was given in the catholic church?

 

Yes, it must be immersion.

 

baptizo = to whelm, make fully wet, dip, cover wholly with a fluid

 

3. THE METHOD OF BAPTISM: IMMERSION, POURING or SPRINKLING?

 

a) Baptism in the Greek is "Baptizo" which undoubtedly means immersion, never sprinkling "rantizo", or pouring "ekcheo".

 

b) In Mark 1:10, Jesus came "up out of the water" showing that we too should be baptised by immersion.

In Acts 8:38,39, the Eunuch came "up out of the water" showing that he had to have been "in under the water".

 

c) Only immersion pictures the meaning of baptism, which is death to my old way of life, burial of my old man with his habits, and rising to a new life with Christ. Romans 6:1-4.

 

d) "Pouring", not "sprinkling", was the first exception to immersion and was allowed in the case of sickness. This was called "Christian baptism." Cyprian (250 AD) was the first to approve of sprinkling. Even non-immersionists admit that immersion was the only baptism of the first and second century churches.

 

Objections: Infant sprinklers think that there MAY have been babies in the Philippian jailer's household in Acts 16:30-34. Yet they forget to read v.34, which says, "believing in God with ALL HIS HOUSE". Since all his household believed, no babies were present. They must all have been of a believing age and therefore qualifying for believer’s baptism by immersion.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baptism is to be fully immersed, and it does not count if it was not done willingly for the purpose of repentance. John the Baptist had people come to him in a river, it never said he went about with water in a gourd or bucket sprinkling water on their foreheads. John 3:23 KJV says that he went to AEnon near Salim because there was plenty of water and people came to be baptized. This is AEnon, meaning "natural spring." Anyways, I have to wonder why churches believe baptizing infants will do anything for them when the child had just been baptized in amniotic fluid for 9 months... It is a doctrine of devils to consider infantile baptism equivalent to biblical baptism. It is called the baptism of repentance, and what would a baby have to repent for having not known good or evil according to John the Baptist. Baptism is a conscious pledge performed by an individual who knows his own sin to voluntarily request a lifetime of suffering on Earth in Christ's name for the Father. How can an infant perform this task described by Simon Peter stated here: 1 Peter 3:20-21 KJV.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Topics

    • Baptism is a Sign and a Seal

      Dr. Joseph R. Nally, Jr.     The circumcision made without hands is symbolized by actual circumcision in the OC (Rom. 2:28-29) and actual physical baptism in the NC (Col. 2:11-12, etc. However, it is more than just a mere symbol. As Pratt maintains:   With specific regard to baptism, it is worth noting that the New Testament never describes baptism as something ordinary or natural; it never speaks of baptism as a mere symbol. The language of sacrament was sustained by Reformed churche

      in Covenant Theology

    • Modes of Baptism: Charles Hodge Systematic Theology

      § 7. Baptism.   “Baptism is a sacrament, wherein the washing with water, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, doth signify and seal our engrafting into Christ and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord’s.”541   The Mode of Baptism.   According to the definition given above, baptism is a washing with water. By washing is meant any such application of water to the body as effects its purificat

      in Covenant/Household Baptism

    • Baptism - necessary for salvation ?

      What say all of you? 

      in Baptism

    • Debate: Cornelius and Baptism

      Round One Topic: Was Cornelius (and those with him) saved only after they were baptized in water or were they saved when they received the Holy Spirit before being baptized in water?           @Trist will defend the affirmative. @Faber will defend the negative.   The participants have requested that the debate consists of 5 rounds, rather than 3, and I have agreed.   Trist you have 48 hours to make your first post.   No one is allow to post comments until the debate is

      in Theological Debate

    • Spirit Baptism?

      ROUND ONE Affirmative: @seabasscontends that there are only two occurrences of Spirit baptism in the New Testament.   Negative: @Faber contends that all believers received Spirit baptism.   The debate will consists of 4 rounds.   Seabass you have 24 hours to make your first post. No one is allow to post comments until the debate is finished.   See rules for any questions.  

      in Theological Debate

×
×
  • Create New...