Hey, fellowship IS more than a potluck! Praise God! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]
True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
Simply look at each confession. Certainly both cannot be correct. I'm simply working through various issues as I study along and the significant difference between the two just seemed so far. I agree, we need to put this problem behind us, through resolution unto unity. I'll be posting other similar questions as I continue reading through various confessions.<br><br><br>God bless,<br><br>william<br><br>
I think I answered this, both are wrong! When it comes to mode it should be the Church's choice. If one Church chooses to baptize believers by immersion praise God for being faithful! If the Church down the street prefers to pour hallelujah they are faithful too! And if Church number three says sprinkle on babies then praise Jesus they are being faithful too. The important thing is to baptize. Who gives a rip about mode?
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Who gives a rip about mode?</font><hr></blockquote><p> PrestorJohn meant to say "Who gives a wave about mode?" [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rofl.gif" alt="rofl" title="rofl[/img]<br><br>
You may like this audio: Why Do We Baptize Our Children? Go to VIDEOS and then Click on (click here for free RealAudio version) under the aforementioned title.<br><br>-----<br>Grudem presents three main arguments for immersion as the biblical mode of baptism:<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]"Baptizo means 'to plunge, dip, immerse.'"</font><hr></blockquote><p> There is no single instance in the New Testament in which it is stated that baptism took place by immersion. This should incline us away from dogmatic assertions that it must be done by immersion. Certainly "immerse" is within the semantic range of the Greek word baptizo. The real question is: How broad is baptizo's semantic range? <br><br>In fact, no example in the New Testament requires the meaning "immerse." All could be explained by the word "wash," which appears to be the primary meaning of baptizo in the New Testament. Regarding John's baptism (from which Grudem frequently argues), "the basic conception is still that of a cleansing bath" (Kittle, TDNT, vol. 1, p. 537). Immersion is not required for a bath. The picture could just as well be one of wading, or of pouring, or of a combination of modes. <br><br>Moreover, even if it could be demonstrated that people were baptized standing waist-deep in water, it still would not prove that this was essential to the baptism. It could just as well have been the case that John poured water over their heads while they stood in the water, and that the pouring was the essential element in John's mind. It is speculation either way, and thus not grounds for dogmatism.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]"'Immerse' is appropriate and probably required for the word in several New Testament passages."</font><hr></blockquote><p> Not true - it's frequently appropriate but never required (see above). Grudem also appeals to prepositions such as en and ek to prove his point here. The problem is that these prepositions have far broader semantic ranges than Grudem lists. For one thing, en does not always refer to location - it can also refer to means or instrumentality (e.g. "John baptized people with or by means of the Jordan River, i.e. with its water"). <br><br>Consider also the example of Mark 1:5,10 to which Grudem appeals. There, the preposition en refers to the location where the baptism took place, not to the mode of baptism. A baptism may take place "in" the water without requiring one to be submerged in the water (to this end note that Mark does not say that people were baptized hupo or "under" the water). Ankle-deep is in the water, and it makes sense to stand in the water even if the means of baptism is pouring or sprinkling (easier to reach the water, no containers to refill, etc.). Ek would be a proper pronoun to use to describe leaving the location where such a baptism took place.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]"Only immersion symbolizes burial with Christ.</font><hr></blockquote><p>The symbolism of association/burial with an atonement has its roots in the Old Testament sacrificial system. In the Old Testament, one outward means by which the people visibly participated in the death of the sacrificial animal was by the sprinkling of the animal's blood on the people (e.g. Exod. 24:8), or even simply dabbing it on the priest's ear, toe, and thumb (e.g. Exod. 29:20). In no instance was anyone ever immersed in blood. Of course, this does not prove that baptism can't be by immersion, and it is not to say that immersing someone doesn't effectively demonstrate burial and raising. The point is simply that this is not the only way to make such an association, and that it was not the way the association was made in the Old Testament.<br><br>First and foremost, Grudem appears to mistake the old and new covenants for different covenants, when in fact they are one and the same (one covenant of grace under various administrations, etc.; cf. WCF 7.5). As we learn in Hebrews 6:13-20, the covenant which Christ mediates is the Abrahamic covenant. It is a "renewed" covenant, not a "brand new" or "replacement" covenant. Because it is the same covenant, we ought to expect significant continuity across different administrations (such as was always the case with every Old Testament administrative change).<br><br>Second, Grudem's examples of differences between the covenant administrations in various portions of Bible Doctrine are simply incorrect. Take for instance his insistence that the children of believers are not members of the church. Paul refutes this error in 1 Corinthians when he says on the one hand that the children of believers are "holy" (hagios; 1 Cor. 7:14), and on the other hand that the church is composed of all those who are "sanctified" (hagiazo) and "saints" (hagios; 1 Cor. 1:2). The children of believers are hagios, which makes them part of the church. <br><br>Or consider his example that Old Testament saints offered things to God on the altar, while New Testament saints offer God "spiritual sacrifices." This is all well and good, except that the Old Testament saints also offered God "spiritual sacrifices" (cf. Ps. 51:17), and the New Testament saints offer physical things in sacrifice (e.g. "sharing" in Heb. 13:15) as well as depend upon the actual, physical sacrifice of Christ on the cross for their sufficient atonement. Even now in heaven Christ continually pleads his shed blood on our behalf in order to maintain our salvation (Heb. 7:25; 9:11-15). And when there was still an altar, early Christians felt free to use that too (Acts 21:26). These are points of continuity between the administrations of the covenant, not points of difference. <br><br>Without getting into every detail Grudem offers, suffice it to say that from my perspective he skews the data too much in order to support his arguments. As a result, I think his ultimate conclusions are flawed.<br><br> Personally, I think we ought to stick more closely to biblical mode than we often do (e.g. I think we should use wine in the Lord's Supper). But we also need to be careful not to confuse circumstances that accompanied mode with mode itself. Our dogmatism on mode ought not to be greater than our certainty about these distinctions. I believe the New Testament does not demonstrate any singular mode for baptism. Certainly I believe that immersion is one good option, but I think good cases can be made for pouring and sprinkling too.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]When it comes to mode it should be the Church's choice. If one Church chooses to baptize believers by immersion praise God for being faithful! If the Church down the street prefers to pour hallelujah they are faithful too! And if Church number three says sprinkle on babies then praise Jesus they are being faithful too. The important thing is to baptize.
Bravo!
Can this be worked out in practice? The elders of my church have certainly attempted to do so, by always explaining the signification of the unused modes. Thus although older children and adults are normally dunked, and babies sprinkled, the sign is always explained during the baptism in relation to all three modes: death/burial/resurrection, washing away of sin, anointing of the Holy Spirit. BTW, both credo- and paedo- baptisms are performed as well, with explanation given of the covenantal obligations normally associated with both forms. Thus the adult member will not only be required to confess and exhibit a living faith in Christ, but be exhorted to do so as member of the body; the church will not only accord the infant the benefits of covenantal identity, but will also require a vital confession of living faith before being admitted to the Lord's Supper in later years.
Just today one of my brothers and I were talking after service about the possibility--based on some small noises we have heard from the trenches here in New York--of the reunion of baptismally-divided communions, or at the very least congregations, in the face of the urgency of recovering and clinging to the unity of the faith once for all delivered to the saints. I do hope we see that day soon.
PrestorJohn<br><br>I agree with everything except when you said: "And if Church number three says sprinkle on babies then praise Jesus they are being faithful too."<br>The moment someone says babies can be included in baptism, can they really be called "Reformed Baptist"? <br><br>Tom
The quick and dirty answer to that is "no". However, since this discussion originated with questions about mode of baptism not with type (ie: credeo vs paedo). I still stand by my answer. Also let me ask you this Tom hypothetically (Us being Baptists and all). If you and I were pastor/elders in a RB church and while we were out camping in the desert we convinced our Mexican guide of the need for salvation and he right there and then (just like the Eunich) asked to be baptized would you tell him to wait until we got him back to our Church in the North or would you accommodate him by pouring some of the water in our canteen upon him? (Lets just say there is no other source of water for miles) I would and would consider him baptized. Would you or would you insist on him going to some church out of his way just to immerse him?<br><br>Let me know.
PrestorJohn<br><br>Given the situation that you gave, I would accommodate him by pouring some of the water in our canteen upon him.<br>I have a feeling however that I would be in the minority of Reformed Baptist pastors who would however.<br><br>Tom
And there Tom lies the problem. Now that you understand the issue do something about it. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/ponder.gif" alt="ponder" title="ponder[/img]
My last church's Reformed Baptist pastor said that the different modes do qualify as baptism, but given the SBC requirements, he would have to immerse. Another thing to keep in mind is that if your are baptized by sprinkling, if you ever want to join a Baptist Church, you will have to be re-baptized. The Presbyterian minister who baptized me said he could use another church's facility if baptism by immersion was important to me. I wish I had been immersed then instead of sprinkled, since I had to be rebaptized. Immersion is recognized by every church as a legitimate mode. <br>My 2 cents, Susan