Are Baptists who hold to TULIP also Reformed?

[the particular baptist]

The problem I see with the idea that this is papist baggage is fairly straightforward. The Reformers had the arguments placed before them explicitly. They rejected them. They're the identical arguments to those of today for credobaptism. And they responded to those arguments with cogent counters.

Book IV Chapter 16

The idea that "baptism" meant immersion is not plausible. The Didache -- a first century book of church order -- pointed out that while larger amounts of water (indeed, fresh water) were preferred, one may be baptized by affusion. It'd require us to believe some departed Apostolic restriction while even some Apostles survived, without comment by the Apostles. The position of affusion appears to be a strong contender for acceptability in the term "baptize", as its root words simply mean "cover" or "douse", as where Nebuchadnezzar was "bapt-ed" with dew when he was roaming the lands.

The Marcan allusion to "baptizing" couches and tables in I believe Ch. 7 also has an early variant -- "sprinkled". So not all references to "baptism" unmistakably meant "immersed" to the people reading them, early on. They were varianted early into words that actually had no concept of immersion in them at all.

Also, let's not confuse immersion itself with credobaptism. Babies have been immersed in baptism since early times as well. And once again, the Reformers had a clear example which they argued against, among the Orthodox churches.

Baptism, by Francis Schaeffer

Im looking strictly at the texts Mikey, and the plain understanding of them in every instance baptism is mentioned in the new testament. Im working on something as i have time that shows that immersion was practiced as a ritual act of cleansing in hebrew culture. Baptizo is a greek translation of the hebrew word tevilah, meaning, immersion. Elisha told Naaman to go tevilah in the Jordan seven times. Immersing was not foreign to Peter when he preached his sermon in Acts 2, he knew what tevilah meant, and it wasnt sprinkling.

 

[mlqurgw]

Im looking strictly at the texts Mikey, and the plain understanding of them in every instance baptism is mentioned in the new testament. Im working on something as i have time that shows that immersion was practiced as a ritual act of cleansing in hebrew culture. Baptizo is a greek translation of the hebrew word tevilah, meaning, immersion. Elisha told Naaman to go tevilah in the Jordan seven times. Immersing was not foreign to Peter when he preached his sermon in Acts 2, he knew what tevilah meant, and it wasnt sprinkling.

PB, have you read much of Gill on the subject? If not here is a link to a site that has all of his works including those on baptism.


Gill's Archive

 

[the particular baptist]

PB, have you read much of Gill on the subject? If not here is a link to a site that has all of his works including those on baptism.


Gill's Archive

Very nice, thanks brother Ron.

 

[heymikey80]

Im looking strictly at the texts Mikey, and the plain understanding of them in every instance baptism is mentioned in the new testament. Im working on something as i have time that shows that immersion was practiced as a ritual act of cleansing in hebrew culture. Baptizo is a greek translation of the hebrew word tevilah, meaning, immersion. Elisha told Naaman to go tevilah in the Jordan seven times. Immersing was not foreign to Peter when he preached his sermon in Acts 2, he knew what tevilah meant, and it wasnt sprinkling.

The plain understanding of the term in every case is what the term meant to a Greek reader. The word means what it means in Greek, it's not restricted to the New Testament. Greek was used for more than writing the New Testament. If it meant something plainly to everyone, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

What about the Septuagint? How about contemporary texts?

Beyond that, what's the deal with Mark 7:

And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.​

That term "washing" is "baptizing". It also has a very early variant: "sprinkling". It's really clear to me, if a Greek reader were copying the book of Mark, read "baptizing", wrote "sprinkling" way early ... then "baptizing" certainly didn't mean "immersing" to him.

There's also the practicality issue of immersing dining couches.

And in Daniel 4:23 the Septuagint says that Nebuchadnezzar was baptized with dew. Certainly no one would say that he was immersed in dew.

Hebrews 9:10 talks about the Levitical ceremonial washings as "baptisms". You're saying they're immersions? They're not; generally they're sprinklings.

 

[the particular baptist]

The plain understanding of the term in every case is what the term meant to a Greek reader. The word means what it means in Greek, it's not restricted to the New Testament. Greek was used for more than writing the New Testament. If it meant something plainly to everyone, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

Was the Greek word bapto translated by the Gospel writers, Paul, and Luke in Acts, a word translated into Greek from Hebrew ?

At present, it is my understanding that the word, or the meaning of the word, was from a well known Hebrew ritual practice of cleansing humans, not sofas and utensils. I gave one example with Naaman, but there are more, like the Pool of Siloam.

I am also focusing on who (in every recorded instance) was baptized as prescribed and described in the New Testament, not just parsing nouns and verbs.

 

[ReformedChapin]

Baptist... Anabaptist... Ya, there's some of both 'a those in me... Accuse away! LOL! (I'm still a hard core 5 point Calvinist tho... haha)

I love you anyways des

Even with your baptist and anabaptist sins

 

[heymikey80]

Was the Greek word bapto translated by the Gospel writers, Paul, and Luke in Acts, a word translated into Greek from Hebrew ?

At present, it is my understanding that the word, or the meaning of the word, was from a well known Hebrew ritual practice of cleansing humans, not sofas and utensils. I gave one example with Naaman, but there are more, like the Pool of Siloam.

And there's another with Nebuchadnezzar. In Daniel 4:23 the Septuagint says that Nebuchadnezzar was baptized with dew. Certainly no one would say that he was immersed in dew. It doesn't take parsing to realize that dew doesn't get thick enough to immerse someone.

Heb 9:10 points to washings of all kinds, inclusive of people.

Mark 7 begins with the Pharisees washing themselves, and calling it baptisms -- of hands, bodies, utensils, eating couches.

It's severely damaging to parse a word to mean one thing, and then another, based on the circumstances. There's little indication the washing of people and the washing of other things involved a different idea of the quantity of water.

The fact is, bapto includes immersion; it includes affusion; it even includes covering by sprinkling. It's covering, particularly with a cleansing liquid. It's that general.

I am also focusing on who (in every recorded instance) was baptized as prescribed and described in the New Testament, not just parsing nouns and verbs.

Well, there're four families baptized in the New Testament. You're essentially requiring that none of these families had children too small to say they believed.

It doesn't stop with the end of Acts, either.

The Apostolic Constitutions, from the mid 200's AD, had prescribed requirements from the elders in the event someone was brought to them who was not old enough to speak.

If the Apostles were so demanding that baptism should only be restricted to believing individuals, and not extended to all in believing households, their statements don't reflect it; nor do Jesus'. The departure from what would have had to have been an Apostolic restriction was so dizzyingly quick -- and so silently accepted -- that it stretches credulity to assert as much. The early church was frought with division over exactly this (for instance, with the celebration day for Easter), so you'd expect someone to complain. In fact, Tertullian -- being a Montanist -- was an "overboard" baptist (ca 200 AD), thinking baptism should be delayed until all life's major mileposts were past, for the security of your credo against the punishment of your apostasy -- but as far as I can tell, he didn't make a case for Apostolicity.

 

[the particular baptist]

And there's another with Nebuchadnezzar. In Daniel 4:23 the Septuagint says that Nebuchadnezzar was baptized with dew. Certainly no one would say that he was immersed in dew. It doesn't take parsing to realize that dew doesn't get thick enough to immerse someone.

Heb 9:10 points to washings of all kinds, inclusive of people.

Mark 7 begins with the Pharisees washing themselves, and calling it baptisms -- of hands, bodies, utensils, eating couches.

It's severely damaging to parse a word to mean one thing, and then another, based on the circumstances. There's little indication the washing of people and the washing of other things involved a different idea of the quantity of water.

The fact is, bapto includes immersion; it includes affusion; it even includes covering by sprinkling. It's covering, particularly with a cleansing liquid. It's that general.

I focus on the texts that deal with baptism as the public profession of and identification with Christ and believe following that model is the biblical one. There is plenty evidence for me to remove all doubt that what the gospel writers and Luke the evangelist meant by bapto was immersion and administered to believers and no one else. What happened later does not qualify what is prescribed and described in Scripture.

Does the text not read like this in Romans ?

Romans 6:3-5 Do you not know that all of us who have been immersed into Christ Jesus were immersed into his death? We were buried therefore with him by immersion 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. or if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.


I know this doesnt teach baptismal regeneration but that Paul uses the Ordinance of Baptism/Immersion to picture the reality of conversion.

Well, there're four families baptized in the New Testament. You're essentially requiring that none of these families had children too small to say they believed.

Why make the the fantastic leap to include infidels and infants ? Those who believed were baptized, because texts elsewhere qualify that.

 

[heymikey80]

I focus on the texts that deal with baptism as the public profession of and identification with Christ and believe following that model is the biblical one. There is plenty evidence for me to remove all doubt that what the gospel writers and Luke the evangelist meant by bapto was immersion and administered to believers and no one else.

Mkay. I've none.

What happened later does not qualify what is prescribed and described in Scripture.

What happened to the word before and after do qualify what the word itself means, and deprive most baptistic arguments of historical footing for immersion, only. It's Greek. It's a pretty common Greek word. Its meaning is wider than immersion.

Does the text not read like this in Romans ?

Romans 6:3-5 Do you not know that all of us who have been immersed into Christ Jesus were immersed into his death? We were buried therefore with him by immersion 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. or if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his.

Well, no, it doesn't. Greek uses "baptizo" in two senses, a concrete sense of being covered by water, and another sense of dying in by something overwhelming (Mt 10:39). Paul is pointing to the connection between the two.

Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus [concretely] have been baptized into His death [what 'baptize" means, non-reistically]? 4Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. Rom 6:3-4​

But even if Paul meant a reistic imagery exclusively, everyone was baptized with water upon their death. They were washed for burial. Generally they were not immersed. The connection of immersion with burial underground is much more tenuous than the connection with washing the lifeless body in preparation for burial.

Or do you not know that all of us who have been washed into Christ Jesus have been washed into His death? 4Therefore we have been buried with Him through washing unto death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. Rom 6:3-4​

I know this doesnt teach baptismal regeneration but that Paul uses the Ordinance of Baptism/Immersion to picture the reality of conversion.

Mmm, I believe Paul would say he's picturing the reality of union with Christ. I don't see a whole lot connecting it with conversion. Maybe with Christian walk, though.

Why make the the fantastic leap to include infidels and infants ? Those who believed were baptized, because texts elsewhere qualify that.

For infants, you can ask God about that "fantastic" leap in the case of another sign of faith (Gen 17). What's your explanation of that? Does it comport with what Paul says about that sign of faith and how it operates (Rom 4)?

I tend to begin with a policy of not challenging God, and go from there.

As for infidels, I believe I haven't commented on that. I assume you mean minor adults in the household of faith? There aren't any now, but I would certainly have expected the households of Christian heads to share in that, and in each of three cases, the entire household was baptized. Either it contained minors not of age or it didn't. Either in contained adults treated as minors in the household or it didn't.

 

[the particular baptist]

You can tell im a glutton for punishment when i see who i consider the smartest person on CF enter this debate, and i dont find another thread to occupy myself with.

I insist that my only standard is what is explicit in the New Testament regarding who was immersed, and how. I dont appeal to tradition, church fathers, or anything else. For me the Ordinance is black and white and ive yet to read anything in the New Testament that anyone other than a believer was immersed.

That said, i do have some other things to say regarding Dr Clark's comments, and the OP. I need another day or so to think about it.

 

[heymikey80]

I insist that my only standard is what is explicit in the New Testament regarding who was immersed, and how.

"Explicit" is a high standard, not satisfied by say, Acts 16.

Lydia's household was baptized; Scripture only claims that Lydia believed. (Acts 16:15)

The household of Stephanus is also not explicit. And if Gaius' household is meant by 1 Corinthians 1, as it appears it may've been meant for Crispus, then that'd be another household in question.

There're grammatical constructions other theologians have challenged about the Philippian jailer's household as well -- these are marginal in Greek as to whether the jailer's household members believed.

The Baptist argument is that it's implicitly concluded that the whole household believed, it's not really explicit.

I dont appeal to tradition, church fathers, or anything else. For me the Ordinance is black and white and ive yet to read anything in the New Testament that anyone other than a believer was immersed.

If you look for explicit citation for someone other than a believer, you won't find it. But if you look for an explicit citation that everyone baptized is a believer, you also won't find it. Finally, if you look for something requiring that baptism be immersion, you won't find that.

But if you look for something showing the Greek word "baptism" is not always immersion, there are a number of citations in Scripture about that.

And if you look for God's treatment of other signs of faith, you'll find He's explicit about applying another sign of faith on infants of believers, infants who clearly have no confession of faith at the time. To expect God to oppose the use of His new sign of faith on infants, I would think you'd need to supersede that precedent. And there's no such explicit precedent in Scripture.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

The verses in Acts that usually "prove" credo-baptism are NOT and have NOT been good proof for anything but the fact that people were baptised.

 

[JM]

The traditional Baptism as practice by the Jews is interesting.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

yep and NT baptism, ie directly corrolated to circumcision in the OT of the Jews totally enveloped children, although the word children wasn't in this article.
Again: Covenant, Sacrament, Sign, and Seal.

 

[the particular baptist]

yep and NT baptism, ie directly corrolated to circumcision in the OT of the Jews totally enveloped children, although the word children wasn't in this article.
Again: Covenant, Sacrament, Sign, and Seal.

chapter and verse John.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

You want verses that circumcision was done on children in the OT?
Verses that say the infants were baptised?

It's already been done time and time again here brother.
I have plenty of links to sites that for whatever reason cannot be linked here.
Sorry.
Google is a friend.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

Here's the deal:

Children WERE a part of the OLD covenant family via circumcision.
Why are infants and children NOT considered thusly via the NT "church"??????
I don't buy it.

 

[the particular baptist]

"Explicit" is a high standard, not satisfied by say, Acts 16.

Lydia's household was baptized; Scripture only claims that Lydia believed. (Acts 16:15)

The household of Stephanus is also not explicit. And if Gaius' household is meant by 1 Corinthians 1, as it appears it may've been meant for Crispus, then that'd be another household in question.

Mike, the other passages shed the light necessary to conclude that only believers were immersed.

The Baptist argument is that it's implicitly concluded that the whole household believed, it's not really explicit.

It is plain as day for me. Whats not really plain is the good and necessary consequence by which infant sprinkling is called baptism. Again, not a single verse.

But if you look for an explicit citation that everyone baptized is a believer, you also won't find it.

Not so Mike. Every New Testament passage plainly says believers were immersed.

Finally, if you look for something requiring that baptism be immersion, you won't find that.

The word means immersed when referring to the Ordinance and who it was administered to.

But if you look for something showing the Greek word "baptism" is not always immersion, there are a number of citations in Scripture about that.

I concede that when the word comes up not related to the Ordinance.

And if you look for God's treatment of other signs of faith, you'll find He's explicit about applying another sign of faith on infants of believers, infants who clearly have no confession of faith at the time. To expect God to oppose the use of His new sign of faith on infants, I would think you'd need to supersede that precedent. And there's no such explicit precedent in Scripture.

This is the good and necessary consequence argument and i dont see it. I see believers baptized because in every instance its what the text says.

 

[the particular baptist]

You want verses that circumcision was done on children in the OT?
Verses that say the infants were baptised?

No brother. I want a New Testament verse where an Apostle sprinkled a baby and called it baptism, not the good and necessary consequence argument.

 

[LiturgyInDMinor]

No brother. I want a New Testament verse where an Apostle sprinkled a baby and called it baptism, not the good and necessary consequence argument.

It's not there specifically, sorry.
Baptism-lite is there though.
Out of context actually.

I am sure you know this.

Paedo vs Credo..SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY!
Sounds like an MMA PPV.

G'nite.
It's an overdone topic.