The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Baptism why the disagreement concerning mode?

Something that has interested me and has been on my mind is the disagreement on the issue of the mode of baptism, immersion or sprinkling. I believe first we should understand why Christ was baptized in order to understand which method should be used.

Many will say that Christ was baptized to identify with sinners. I don't believe that is a complete understanding of His reason for being baptized. I believe that Jesus' baptism also was required for His entrance into the priesthood, fulfilling all righteousness which required the ceremonial washing. He was consecrated to the service of God the Father during His humility. We believers who are baptized, need to keep in mind that it isn't just a symbol of what Christ has done for us, but we are being consecrated as priests unto our God and the Lord Jesus Christ. We have lost the meaning/purpose of baptism and in doing so, got wrapped up in inconsequential arguments concerning the mode. Sprinkling or immersion? For me, I believe either is appropriate. Priests were consecrated by washing and sprinkling, so either is acceptable. Immersion is more relevatory of the gospel message but sprinkling also is acceptable for the purpose of consecration. I prefer the immersion method because of that, but if a person wants to consecrate themselves to God by sprinkling, I praise God for that too, because it is the consecration that is of importance.

In light of this, mode is not important enough to debate nor split a church over, and any that do so end up bringing schism to the body of Christ. I can fellowship with either and accept the teaching of either as long as the purpose of baptism is explained. Too many are being baptized who misunderstand what they are really doing and the church suffers because of it. If we have been consecrated as priest, we should live our lives as such.

I may again find opposition to these statements, as I find that quite common here, but again, each must decide in their own mind. We must each be convinced of what we believe baptism means and then determine whether mode is important. As for creedal or paedo, I have my view, but that has already been beaten to death on this discussion group and I don't know that addressing it would be of any benefit to anyone.

Aside from your wanting to assign the uniqueness of Christ's mediatorial priesthood universally to believers, you seem to have overlooked or possibly rejected a third mode of baptism; effusion (pouring). Why is that?

Paedobaptists have recognized all three modes, although some have shoved immersion into the background, most likely due to the insistence of credobaptists that immersion is the ONLY proper mode and have even gone to the extent of excluding anyone who will not submit to immersion. Here's how the Westminster Confession of Faith states the Presbyterian view of baptism:

[color:"blue"]The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXVIII
Of Baptism[/color]

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church;[2] but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.[8]

1. Matt. 28:19
2. I Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27-28
3. Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12
4. Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:5
5. John 3:5; Titus 3:5
6. Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; 22:16
7. Rom. 6:3-4
8. Matt. 28:19-20

II. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto.[9]

9. Acts 8:36, 38; 10:47; Matt. 28:19

III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.[10]

10. Heb. 9:10, 13, 19, 21; Mark 7:2-4; Luke 11:38

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12]

11. Acts 2:41; 8:12-13; 16:14-15
12. Gen. 17:7-14; Gal. 3:9, 14; Col. 2:11-12; Acts 2:38-39; Rom. 4:11-12; Matt. 19:13; 28:19; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17; I Cor. 7:14

V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it;[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]

13. Gen. 17:14; Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38; see Luke 7:30
14. Rom. 4:11; Acts 10:2, 4, 22, 31, 45, 47
15. Acts 8:13, 23

VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.[17]

16. John 3:5, 8
17. Rom. 6:3-6; Gal. 3:27; I Peter 3:21; Acts 2:38, 41

VII. The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.[18]

18. Rom. 6:3-11

In His grace,

Again we come head to head. I was only pointing out about the method of baptism and pouring is fine too, excuse me for not being through in listing the modes. That wasn't the point of the post.

As for the uniqueness of Christ's mediatorial priesthood, you fail to understand what was being said. Do each of my posts immediately draw opposition from you before you even consider what is being said?

How many High Priests were there during the time of the temple worship? How many high priests are there today? How many common priests were there during temple worship? How many common everyday priests are there today? Please try not to put words in my mouth that I never said nor intended to be said. In this case identifying born again believers as being on the same level with Christ. There is only ONE high priest today, the Lord Jesus Christ. However, believers are also priests, although not high priests.

Yes, we come head-to-head since you once again have posted something controversial. And, you even anticipated that you would meet some opposition so one must assume you knew beforehand that what you were going to post wasn't generally accepted.

YOU made the connection between Christ being baptized in regard to His entering the "priesthood" and a believer being baptized in regard to their being "priests" unto God. This is why I provided what the Westminster Confession teaches concerning the meaning of Baptism. However, YOU seem to think that ALL those who before us have somehow missed something very important and that we should accept and/or adopt your personal "insight(s)". Yet, when one consults the Confessions of all the major denominations on this matter, not one mentions "priesthood" as that which baptism signifies. I personally consulted the following Confessions:

• Westminster Confession of Faith
• Belgic Confession
• French Confession
• Savoy Confession
• Second Helvetic Confession
• Waldensian Confession
• Thirty-nine Articles of Religion
• London Confession of Baptist Faith

Now, how is it that these many denominations and 100's of godly men who were more than knowledgeable of the Scriptures somehow missed this "insight" you have come across? Doesn't it seem likely that IF this was an important item in regard to the meaning of baptism that SOMEONE would have included it in a denominational statement of faith? And, given that these denominations have various disagreements in regard to baptism, e.g., mode, recipients, etc., YET they all are in agreement that "priesthood" has no place in the meaning of baptism. Shouldn't that tell you something even further? Could it possibly be that Christ's baptism was in some ways unique and therefore not completely applicable to believers?

In His grace,

Discussion is brought about by different views, what benefit is there if we discuss the same thought and ideas? I just stand separate from the status quo on this newsgroup although I am reformed in theological stance.


I never told anyone to accept or adopt my "personal insights". I only ask that people think for themselves, and not limit themselves to the past because that is all they know.


As mentioned in previous threads, do not rely on the arm of flesh. It seems it has been forgotten that the things of God are revealed by the Spirit of God. How do so many miss supposed "insights"? Could it be that they are limited by their past, their creeds and their traditions? There are many things you and I hold in common concerning the faith, yet many fail to grasp, why is that?

In closing, a little more explanation about baptism:

The Holy Spirit baptizes us into Christ, a Spiritual, irresistable consecration to the priesthood. This is spoken of many places in the N.T.

Water baptism is our "personal" choosing of consecration to this priesthood which is the calling of God on ALL born again Christians.

This is the reason that water baptism is so important, to neglect it is in effect to deny God's calling on our lives. It is an act of obedience and submission, willingly consecrating ourselves to the service of God.

1. It is very sad that you voluntarily set yourself apart from the Church to which the Holy Spirit was first given as the "pillar and ground of the truth" (1Tim 3:15; cf. Eph 4:8-13f). It isn't that we put our trust in men nor in the traditions of men but it was God's will to build the Church through the instrumentality of men to whom was given the Holy Spirit. I hold to the reality of "propositional truth" since the Scriptures are divinely inspired. I do not hold to any idea that "individual insights" trump God's established method of disseminating His truth. If you feel justified in rejecting hundreds of years of scholarship by thousands of godly men and women who have been indwelt by the Spirit of God, why should I or anyone else listen to you, seeing that you are but likewise a man? NO ONE goes it alone.... !! (1Jh 2:19; 4:1)

Perhaps you would benefit from reading this: Tradition: Romish and Protestant, by John Murray (see esp. the latter part).

2. Could you please provide specific biblical texts which teach that baptism signifies one's consecration to a priesthood?

I'm so thankful for those individuals who did "go it alone", Luther as an example. You are so confident in your beliefs, however, be careful you aren't the person who is living under deception. Imply what you want about me, but I know in whom I have believed and I'm confident of His presence in my life.


All of scripture plainly points to this fact, try putting it all together instead of looking for a specific verse. For those with understanding it is plainly in view.

BTW, It doesn't surprise me that you are unable to grasp this point. If you were to agree, then it would undermine your position about peadobaptism. So sad. One flaw in the wall can bring the whole house down.

hisalone,

I am not a moderator or administrator of this board and have faced some opposition myself.

Discussions of different views are welcome, however views which are not historic, confessional, orthodox or Reformed will be opposed. If you hold to the reformed faith as you say perhaps you could use your knowledge to edify those who are weaker than yourself.


Thanks.
William


.

Perhaps a more comprehensive knowledge of church history might be to your advantage. Luther, for example, didn't go it alone. What Luther "discovered" wasn't new at all. Many before him had embraced sola fide long before he came along. And even more importantly, Luther simply embraced the "faith once delivered unto the saints" which is found in Scripture. The Reformers likewise didn't invent what we know as the Reformed Faith. Augustine in the 4th century was of the same mind. And each and every doctrine which the Church has embraced and written in its historical documents was scrutinized carefully regardless of who brought it forward. So again I say, NO ONE goes it alone. Thus my personal beliefs are not "unique", i.e., I do not hold to views which are "new" but those which have undergone great scrutiny and have been tested over time. I stand with the Church which it too deemed the truth of God's infallible and inerrant Word. Keith Mathison wrote with much wisdom concerning A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of "Solo" Scriptura.

How sad you continue to take an arrogant stand stating that YOU have "understanding" and all others are lacking in such. How strange it is that no one else has had or even now has such unique understanding. If it was so plain, as you are want to believe, then why is it that you alone are able to grasp it? How is it possible that millions of others are blind to that which is so plain in your eyes? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

FYI, my position of paedobaptism does not hinge upon your "insight". <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />

In His grace,

hisalone,

Christ received John's baptism, which is not Christian baptism (Acts 19:3-5). Certainly they are related; however, one cannot postulate a one-to-one correspondence between Christ's submission to John's baptism, and the Christian rite of baptism. Consequently, you're going to have a produce a sustained argument from Scripture to support your position that baptism is our consecration as priests.

As a Credo-Baptist myself, I have to say that I am disappointed in you.
Pilgrim asked you a simple question, yet you answered it by making yourself look like you are the only one who really gets it.
I don't really want to get too involved in the debate about Credo vs. Paedo, especially since this is for the most part is a Paedo board and I respect most of the posters too much to get into a debate of that nature.
But if I did, I can assure you, that I would not go making statements that come across as though I am a lone ranger.
Pilgrim is right in saying that Luther did not go at it alone. While it is true that Luther took a stand that was against the Roman Catholic Church of that day and this may be where you are mistaken. But Luther was not original in his beliefs; he just brought them to the forefront again.

I do have a question for you however.
When you are using the word “priest”, are you using it in the sense that all true believers have access to God because of what Christ has done?

Tom

Ya think so? You just might be surprised to know just how many Credo Baptists are members here.

What are you talking about? I didn't say I was the only person who gets it, you jumped to that conclusion. I said those with understanding can plainly see the truth about Baptism, it is a common thread about washings and purifications throughout the Bible. Sadly, everyone here thinks I'm a lone ranger. I get tired of the accussations.

After my post, I spoke with a multitude of creedal Baptists, and they all agreed with me. A paedo baptist can't because it negates the issue of infant baptism.

I answered his question by saying it is a common thread throughout the whole bible, I can't just give a particular verse.

Luther stood alone against the multitude, so yes he did go it alone when it came down to the confrontation. I'm not alone in my belief but here it seems I stand alone. Of course the paedo baptist camp will be against this view because it is against their stance on baptism, so pulling them and their creeds up as a defense is like asking a JW about the diety of Christ.

Your disappointment is unfounded. I did answer, I was only pointing out that if there is a flaw in a theological belief it will skewer everything else. What do you believe the purpose of water Baptism is?

I'm using the word of priest in the sense of being representatives to the people of the one true God. We handle the Holy things of God (God's Word). We minister the things of God to a lost world. We have not been called out of the world for our own sake and happiness, but for the glory of God. None of it is about us, it is all about Him to whom belongs all glory, praise and honor. As priests of God, we need to live our lives separate from the world and self, consecrated for Him alone. Sadly, most in the church think it is all about them, they don't even understand their reasonable service to God.

The London Confession of Baptist Faith
Chapter XXIX - Of Baptism

I. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with Him, in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Him;[1] of remission of sins;[2] and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.[3]

1. Rom. 6:3-5; Col. 2:12; Gal. 3:27
2. Mark 1:4; Acts 22:16
3. Rom. 6:4

II. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.[4]

4. Mark 16:16; Acts 2:41; 8:12, 36-37; 18:8

III. The outward element to be used in this ordinance is water, wherein the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.[5]

5. Matt. 28:19-20; Acts 8:38

IV. Immersion, or dipping of the person in water, is necessary to the due administration of this ordinance.[6]

6. Matt. 3:16, John 3:23

Strange, isn't it that the OFFICIAL Baptist confession of faith makes no mention whatsoever about baptism meaning that "we are being consecrated as priests unto our God and the Lord Jesus Christ".

Now that's a most unique defense of your view. There is no one particular verse that speaks of God being one in three persons but I surely can provide you with myriad passages which teach the doctrine. Why can you not provide a few texts which clearly teach that baptism means a person's consecration into a/the priesthood?

Nonsense! This statement is based upon either a total misunderstanding or misconstruing of the paedobaptism position and it being mated with a non-existent "insight". All the significance of baptism belongs to ALL who have faith regardless of age. So even if your "insight" was true, it would still be applicable to an infant. Or, do you think only adults are capable of being saved?

In His grace,

You put way too much faith in confessions. I don't find my final source in the confessions. As you demonstrated with this snippet, confessions of faith can be contradictory.


What do YOU think the purpose of Baptism is? That is the crux of the matter, our view of its purpose.


Why are you laughing? From your answer to me, it shows that you really do not understand anything that has been said to this point. Water baptism isn't necessary nor does it add to our salvation, it is about our choice to be obedient. How can an infant make such a choice? BTW, I believe in dedicating a child to the Lord, a choice a parent can make, but baptism is a personal choice that nobody can make for you. Is that so difficult to see?