Denied on basis of being a CredoBaptist

[the particular baptist]

So since there is no scriptural example of women receiving communion u don't do either...dohy at baptist logic.

Apples and oranges, besides, Paul to the Corinthians talking about the Table and the congregation makes it a pretty safe to arrive there.

BTW wheres the explicit command to only submurge individuals?

Because RC, Baptism in Greek means immerse.

baptiðzw - strongs # 907

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]

1. to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2. to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
3. to overwhelm

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]Not to be confused with 911, bapto. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change. When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mark 16:16. 'He that believes and is baptised shall be saved'. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989. [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva] 907[/FONT]

 

[Anoetos]

There are actually several cases in Greek literature and the Apocrypha as well is New Testament references where baptizo can only mean a washing with, sprinkling or pouring of water.

See this article by Brian Schwertley.

One example from the article:

The Baptist contention that baptizo and its cognate must always refer to immersion is thoroughly disproved by the use of the term in the New Testament. Note the following examples.

First, in Luke 11:38 we encounter the aorist passive indicative of baptizo (ebaptisthe) to describe the extra-biblical Pharisaical tradition of a religious hand washing before meals. “He [Jesus] went in [to a certain Pharisee’s house] and sat down to eat. When the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that He had not first washed before dinner.” Earlier in His ministry in Galilee the Pharisees had strongly criticized the disciples for eating with unwashed hands (Mk. 7:2-5; Mt. 15:2ff.). Because this hand washing was a religious ordinance made up by the Pharisees to “fence the law” and was not taught anywhere in Scripture, Jesus and the disciples refused to take part in it.

What is particularly interesting regarding these washings is that it is almost certain that they were done by pouring. John Murray writes: “It is distinctly provided in the Talmudic tractate Yadayim that water was to be poured over the hands to the wrist. Chapter II, Mishnah 3, reads as follows: ‘Hands become unclean and are made clean as far as the wrist. How so? If he poured the first water over the hands as far as the wrist and poured the second water over the hands beyond the wrist and the latter flowed back to the hands, the hands nevertheless become clean.’ It would appear that Edersheim is correct when he says, ‘Accordingly, the words of St. Mark can only mean that the Pharisees eat not “except they wash their hands to the wrist.’”

If we interpret the Greek word pugmei as with the fist (instrumental case) we still have a baptism or cleansing by pouring and rubbing, not immersion. Lane writes: “The washing was accomplished by pouring water on the hands, and this fact excludes all suggestions of immersing the hands from Mark’s reference in verse 3. The evangelist correctly specifies that a handful of water was required. The position of the hand was cupped, with the fingers flexed to allow the water to pass between them so as to reach all parts of the hands. By cupping the hand the entire hand could be washed with a very small quantity of water.” When considering this ritual washing we need to keep in mind that: (1) Water in Palestine is not abundant. It was valuable. (2) The ritual washings occurred very frequently. Thus, a method had to be used that conserved water. (3) For ritual cleansings the Jews preferred running, moving or living water. (i.e., poured or sprinkled water.) (4) The water used could only be used once. They could not take a bowl full of water and have 10 people take turns dipping their hands in the same bowl. Each person had to have unused “clean” water. Pouring a little water on a cupped hand that could be rubbed over the entire hands satisfied the requirement for washing with a minimal amount of clean water.

 

[JM]

Nice try but even Roman Catholics recognize the practiced full immersion baptism in the early church, the Eastern Orthodox continue with full immersion, so I think the author isn't being entirely accurate.

Romans 6 clearly defines baptism as immersion in Christ's death, the washing practices of the Jews allow for a full immersion of their hands in water even if, as you might argue, the water is being poured. I've never seen or heard of a Reformed sacramental baptism being performed where the infant is completely washed, like the Jews did to their hands, by pouring water over the whole body.

The title I mentioned above by the two paedobaptists really should be consulted. If you want to read it but not buy it try using your local libraries interlibrary loan service. They'll search the country to find a copy of it for you to read.

jm

 

[Anoetos]

So, you didn't read the article then? What about the references to the Septuagint where baptism is used in senses which cannot possibly mean immersion or, alternately where it positively means sprinkling, pouring, washing? What about the other uses of cognates in the NT with clear rabbinic references the import of which is that the word must necessarily mean something other than immersion?

What everyone acknowledges (the RCC included) is that baptism can and often does mean immerse. But what no one but Baptists and those who agree with them in the administration of this sacrament-err, ordinance insists is that it must always necessarily mean that.

 

[JM]

So, you didn't read the article then?

I've read it before seeing it posted here.

...no one but Baptists and those who agree with them in the administration of this sacrament-err, ordinance insists is that it must always necessarily mean that.

So, you didn't read my post? I only insist we follow a biblical pattern, I did not insist on the exclusive meaning of a word at all, but on the New Testament practice and practice of the early church.

What everyone acknowledges (the RCC included) is that baptism can and often does mean immerse.

Good, we're getting something. Now acknowledge Romans 6 and you'll have a biblical idea of baptism before you know it.

...in the administration of this sacrament-err,

And that's the problem, your sacramentalism.

j

 

[heymikey80]

Infant sprinkling cannot be found in scripture. It's really that simple. The doctrine is an eisegesis based on sacramentalism and not from scripture.

Household baptism (pouring) can be found in Scripture. It's really that simple. The doctrine of waitin' 'round for each & every minor member of a household to express a tested profession of faith before baptism is an eisegesis and not from scripture.

It's obviously not based on sacramentalism if it's based on Hebrew covenantalism.

 

[heymikey80]

Apples and oranges, besides, Paul to the Corinthians talking about the Table and the congregation makes it a pretty safe to arrive there.




Because RC, Baptism in Greek means immerse.

baptiðzw - strongs # 907

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]

1. to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2. to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
3. to overwhelm

[/FONT]

I dip chips in salsa all day long without sumberging them.

The implication of the term is to deluge, or to cover. And not completely. Strong was biased.

The Didache even said baptism was accomplished by sprinkling. And you're saying they didn't understand their own language? Mmm. Yeah. I don't think I would agree with that position.

 

[JM]

Household baptism (pouring) can be found in Scripture.

You added the "pouring." As the two paedo's pointed out in their book, I listed it already, it makes no reference to infants. Even the early art work shows children and not infants being baptized.

It's obviously not based on sacramentalism if it's based on Hebrew covenantalism.

This is where we disagree. Paedobaptist Reformed covenantalism is similar to Dispensationalism at this point, both claim Israel is after the flesh, that children of believers are Israel and therefore must be included in the covenant. The New Testament covenant deals with circumcision of the heart and not the physical foreskin.

I dip chips in salsa all day long without sumberging them.

The implication of the term is to deluge, or to cover. And not completely. Strong was biased.

And you are without? You're on a roll!

The Didache even said baptism was accomplished by sprinkling. And you're saying they didn't understand their own language? Mmm. Yeah. I don't think I would agree with that position.

John Calvin on Acts 8:38, "'They descended into the water.' Here we perceive what was the rite of baptizing among the ancients, for they immersed the whole body into the water; now the custom has become established that the minister only sprinkles the body or the head." ("Calvin on Acts", viii, 38).

Romans 6:4 teaches baptism is similar to burial.

j

 

[JM]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Verdana]Dr. John A. Broadus:[/FONT]

Baptism: immersion, sprinkling, pouring, dipping or what?

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Verdana]Some Pharisees and scribes were watching Jesus and his followers, to find fault with them. And seeing some of his disciples eating bread without having washed their hands, they asked Jesus why his disciples did not walk in this matter according to the tradition of the elders. In narrating this the Evangelist Mark, who writes especially for Gentiles, pauses in the midst of the narrative to explain to his Greek and Roman readers that the Jews were very particular about this matter of washing the hands before eating, and washing them "with the fist," scrubbing one hand with the other, that is, washing very carefully - observing the tradition of the elders. In fact, he says, they do something more remarkable than this; when they come from the market - where some unclean person or thing may have touched some portion of their body - they do not eat till they have immersed themselves. And he adds that many other things they have received by tradition to hold, immersions of cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and tables (or it should be "couches "). These practices were so wonderful, and gave such proof of the extreme scrupulosity of the Jews, that it is not strange the writer of the Gospel should have gone on to mention them, though nothing was necessary to explain his narrative but the first statement, that they did not eat without having washed their hands.



But if you say that the word baptizo, in the fourth verse, only means "wash," as the word nipto does in verse second and verse third, then what was the use of adding verse fourth at all? If, according to verse third, they do not eat without having carefully washed their hands, what is the use of adding that when they come from the market they do not eat unless they have washed? This certainly must mean something different from washing their hands, and something much more remarkable, or it would have been a waste of words, a very empty tautology, first to tell us that they do not eat at all, under any circumstances, without having carefully washed their hands, and then to add that when they come from market they do not eat without having washed. One would suppose not, if they wash before eating even when they have not been to market. Perhaps some one says, the washing in verse fourth means purifying, they purify themselves when they come from market. Of course it means a purification, but the washing of verse third means a purification too. That of verse fourth must be a different and more thorough purification, something more than the careful washing of hands, or else you make the inspired evangelist talk nonsense.


[It's always best to read the whole work.]

[/FONT]

 

[heymikey80]

You added the "pouring." As the two paedo's pointed out in their book, I listed it already, it makes no reference to infants. Even the early art work shows children and not infants being baptized.

I didn't add the pouring -- it's right there, in "baptizo".

This is where we disagree. Paedobaptist Reformed covenantalism is similar to Dispensationalism at this point, both claim Israel is after the flesh, that children of believers are Israel and therefore must be included in the covenant. The New Testament covenant deals with circumcision of the heart and not the physical foreskin.

And you are without? You're on a roll!

Strong's incredible due to bias. Examples like Nebuchadnezzar show quite clearly that being baptized doesn't mean being submerged. Unless you think Nebuchadnezzar was a couple millimeters tall (he was "baptized with dew").

John Calvin on Acts 8:38, "'They descended into the water.' Here we perceive what was the rite of baptizing among the ancients, for they immersed the whole body into the water; now the custom has become established that the minister only sprinkles the body or the head." ("Calvin on Acts", viii, 38).

The Baptistic argument that "Jesus went down into the water and came up out of the water" means nothing. One year we took our vacation at the seashore. one of my little daughters went down into the water and came out of the water every' day, but she would not put her head under for all our coaxing. The simple fact is that the meaning of this passage is altogether fulfilled if Jesus went down until His feet were in the Jordan. Francis Schaeffer, "Baptism"

Romans 6:4 teaches baptism is similar to burial.

No, actually Romans 6:4 argues from the point that baptism is metaphorically death -- which it is, in Greek. Which, by the way, is another meaning Strong soft-sold lightly, to mean "overwhelm". "The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized" Mk 10:39

That Greek-metaphor connection so much closer than an illustration of burial (@sea?) as to be ... kinda odd that someone would try to exploit it as an argument. But modern Baptists sure have. The association is not found among early Greek speakers.

 

[heymikey80]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,Verdana]Dr. John A. Broadus:[/FONT]

Baptism: immersion, sprinkling, pouring, dipping or what?

But if you say that the word baptizo, in the fourth verse, only means "wash," as the word nipto does in verse second and verse third, then what was the use of adding verse fourth at all? If, according to verse third, they do not eat without having carefully washed their hands, what is the use of adding that when they come from the market they do not eat unless they have washed?

There's washing hands; washing themselves; washing implements; and washing the furniture they eat from. Baptizo is used for washing themselves and washing implements and furniture.

Oh, and there's an early variant of this passage that copies that last "baptizo" as "rantizo" -- sprinkling. Historically this is significant: the mindset of whoever shifted this copy from "baptizo" to "rantizo" obviously read the words (ie, knew Greek of the time) and considered them equivalent. That was prior to the 400's -- when the early manuscript copied-in "sprinkling".

 

[the particular baptist]

The Baptistic argument that "Jesus went down into the water and came up out of the water" means nothing. One year we took our vacation at the seashore. one of my little daughters went down into the water and came out of the water every' day, but she would not put her head under for all our coaxing. The simple fact is that the meaning of this passage is altogether fulfilled if Jesus went down until His feet were in the Jordan. Francis Schaeffer, "Baptism"

John Calvin on Acts 8:38, "'They descended into the water.' Here we perceive what was the rite of baptizing among the ancients, for they immersed the whole body into the water; now the custom has become established that the minister only sprinkles the body or the head." ("Calvin on Acts", viii, 38).

Lets see, Schaeffer or Calvin, Calvin or Schaeffer. Calvin was exercising intellectual and historical honesty. Schaeffer was not.

 

[heymikey80]

Lets see, Schaeffer or Calvin, Calvin or Schaeffer. Calvin was exercising intellectual and historical honesty. Schaeffer was not.

Calvin was exercising intellectual dependence on information he had. Schaeffer was, too.

The number of Greek exemplars of people "going into the water" who were not submerged is dizzying. In fact, one even states such people were "baptized up to their chests".

"they both went down into the water" Acts 8:38 -- unexpectedly, Philip's pattern is to submerge the baptizer as well as the one baptized, eh? Well let's all go for the Biblical pattern! Be consistent: both the baptizer and the baptized, under the water with you both.

No? Oh, not Scriptural?

38. They went down into the water. Here we see the rite used among the men of old time in baptism; for they put all the body into the water. Now the use is this, that the minister doth only sprinkle the body or the head. But we ought not to stand so much about such a small difference of a ceremony, that we should therefore divide the Church, or trouble the same with brawls. Calvin, Commentaries, Acts 8:38

Clearly by "whole body" Calvin didn't mean "submerge" -- but essentially, the body waded into the water, not simply sprinkling the head.

Oh, and we know from Didache that the idea is to wade out into a body of flowing water as the most appropriate form.

In short, there's a reason I no longer accept submergence as forced by Scripture. I was a Baptist. But then I Reformed.

In case anyone is really reading -- the Scriptural, Apostolic, and ancient Christian concerns about baptism are nowhere near the narrow concerns of today -- whether nonspeaking tykes are in scope of the sacrament, or whether the person is submerged. The primary concern for mode (in Didache) was a preference (in descending order) for flowing (river) water, then fresh water, then a significant volume of water, then any water. All were and are legitimate baptisms.

 

[JustAsIam77]

Question for forum members, does it matter that I was baptized as an infant, I have given my profession of faith before my peers since then.

 

[JM]

Question for forum members, does it matter that I was baptized as an infant, I have given my profession of faith before my peers since then.

It's a matter of church order and proper administration of the ordinances.

 

[JM]

Of course, "Calvin didn't mean what he wrote, Luther didn't either...Zwingli changed his position!" Paedobaptism was a change made by the "church", Calvin admits this and many in the Reformed church admit this. What isn't being admitted to is which "church" changed the practice and why.

There's washing hands; washing themselves; washing implements; and washing the furniture they eat from. Baptizo is used for washing themselves and washing implements and furniture.

Didn't even stop for a second to read it... I took a short break from this forum and have to admit I do not miss the magisteral smugness often found in the theology of the Reformed.

Oh, and there's an early variant of this passage that copies that last "baptizo" as "rantizo" -- sprinkling. Historically this is significant: the mindset of whoever shifted this copy from "baptizo" to "rantizo" obviously read the words (ie, knew Greek of the time) and considered them equivalent. That was prior to the 400's -- when the early manuscript copied-in "sprinkling".

Now hey thinks he knows what was in the mind of a copyist? Give me a break.

 

[JM]

Lets see, Schaeffer or Calvin, Calvin or Schaeffer. Calvin was exercising intellectual and historical honesty. Schaeffer was not.

That's it isn't it. Luther and Zwingli have made similar statements.

 

[heymikey80]

Question for forum members, does it matter that I was baptized as an infant, I have given my profession of faith before my peers since then.

Y'wanna see backflips, ask in Baptist forum.

I think your handle says it all.

 

[JM]

There is no fruit in this rabbit trail we've been on.

Unsubscribed.

 

[JustAsIam77]

It's a matter of church order and proper administration of the ordinances.

It was in a Presbyterian church, therefore it was very much in order with the proper administration of their ordinances.