The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum baptism sprinkling

sojourner is a good example of the baptismal regeneration issued i talked about.

Henry, I am sorry that my my email does not help you. I will assume that you look at scripture much differently then my pastor and I, and are dispensational like macarthur. I was baptized by immersion and I go to a baptist church. I have always believed in baptism by immersion. I still have no problem with it but i am starting to believe sprinkling is the scriptural way. I am probably not the one to be representing this considering i am still new to it myself. Enough rambling. The Lords supper refers to the death and resurrection of Christ so why would we have 2 sacraments to symbolize the same thing. In the OT the passover pointed to the work of Christ and circumcision the work of the holy sprit. Curcumcision meant the removal of sinful flesh which is what baptism means.Col 2:11-12 In both testaments the method of cleansing is by sprinkling or pouring, whether by blood or water.
J Edwards quoted the WCF and so shal I.

"28.3. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person."

Still waiting to hear froma presbyterian.

I am glad to hear you are not a part of that apostate church. However, what you asserted formally was RCC doctrine, baptismal regeneration, or what ever you care to term it. What I asserted was the Presbyterian understanding from Scripture. The two are at odds with on another and do not agree. A person does not enter the KOG upon baptism, rather he enters the visible church, et. al. (see the WCF). A person enters the KOG upon being born again--to use John's phrase... (John 3).

With what do you disagree?

averagefellar, I ask you to look at acts 8 again. The text says "they both went down into the water." Then "he baptized him." Then they "came up out of the water." The language in this text does not talk about baptism by immersion. If it does then both Philip and Eunuch were baptized for they both went down into the water and came up out of the water. What we can see is the baptism took place sometime between going down into the water and coming up out of the water.

Lets look at a few other baptism accounts. The baptism of 3000 in acts 2 in Jerusalem. Was it by immersion? In what water? Jerusalem water supply was by underground cisterns. There was no large lakes in Jerusalem and if there had been it would of been under the control of the Pharisees.

In acts 10 when Cornelius and his family were baptized Peter did not say "can anyone forbid me a lake or a pool" but he said "Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people"

In acts 9 the jailer in Philippi seems to be baptized right there at the jail. It says "he rose and was baptized."

J Edwards,

To what do I disagree :

Article III. Immersion is of first choice and should be done if at all possible. The rest, sprinkling, effusion, it is a matter of what is available and customary.


The first part is a little vague, but what it probably means is that it is required as per Christ's command, it is what has been revealed. However, we know not how Christ, through the Holy
Spirit, may also operate that has not been revealed. It in and of itself does not save as does no other means of Grace.
The second part is also vague, but all upon baptism are considered regenerated. What each believer does with the gifts is entirely up to him. They can reject the means of salvation, just as easily as Adam did in the beginning at any point in life.

Soli Deo Gloria,

Everything refers to the Life, death and resurrection of Christ. You could also include His ascension.

That you refer to them as symbols may be the reason for your doubt and confusion.
They are not symbols. They are salvic events. One in entrance into the Kingdom, the other Communion, is life sustaning within the Body of Christ. It really does not matter if one is only baptised and you fail to maintain that new beginning by partaking of communion. See John 6:51ff.

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> If you would re-read my post I think you'll find I am in agreement that immersion is not necessary. I was poured over.I am in no way a baptist.


God bless,

william

While you are waiting, how about hearing from a "Presbygational"? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> (Savoy Declaration type, aka: Owen)

I do believe there is more biblical evidence for effusion or aspersion over immersion. However, I find no warrant to exclude immersion of any of the other two modes. And I certainly don't buy the argument that immersion "best accords with what baptism symbolizes". This argument is in the mind of the one espousing only and can find no biblical warrant for it, since baptism is the representation of the Gospel and the work of Christ; e.g., death-resurrection, filth-cleansing, etc.

For me the most stubborn obstacles which my Babdist brethren are etymological and practical:

Etymological: The Mode of Baptism by John Murray (.pdf file) - "bapto and baptizo" do not mean "immersion".

Practical: The Token of the Covenant by William MacIntyre - given the logistics required for immersion, it is nearly impossible that immersion was practiced by the Apostles.

In His Grace,

averagefellar, im happy to see we agree. I apologize for my misunderstanding of your post.

Thankyou for your "Presbygational" post pilgrim. I will give those articles a looky.