The Doctrine of Creation: A Critique of Credobaptism.

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Baptism of believers was done by immersion, a reasonable person on saying someone got baptized would assume they walked to a near by body of water and got baptized.

One of the problems I have with credobaptists, is they fail to make the distinction between a descriptive statement and prescriptive statement of Scripture.

PRESCRIPTIVE texts in Scripture prescribe what Christians are to do. They are commands. Examples:

• The Great Commission---Go and make disciples,
  
• Do this in remembrance of me.
• Love our neighbors as ourselves.
• Obedience to the Ten Commandments.

DESCRIPTIVE texts just describe what happened in the historical narrative. Examples:

• Jesus riding on a donkey on Palm Sunday.
• The early church meeting in houses.
• Casting lots for Judas' replacement.

The difference is this: a passage is descriptive if it is simply describing something that happened within a historical narrative, while a passage in prescriptive if it is specifically teaching that something should happen in the lives of Christians.

The problem comes when we interpret descriptive texts as prescriptive.

• The early church cast lots for Judas, does this mean we should cast lots when we extend a call to a pastor?
• The same could be said for meeting in a house for church. Should we today?
  
• Example of David killing Goliath because he was blaspheming God. This is a Descriptive text. If it were prescriptive then we might make the error of slinging rocks at blasphemers everywhere.

All the accounts of baptisms in the book of Acts are descriptions of baptism NOT prescriptions. There is not one text are we commanded to do baptism in a certain mode. NOT ONE.

The only place in the Book of Acts, that depict a prescription of baptism Acts 2:38-39 (which is before any NT baptism was administered). We know it is prescriptive due to the context.

• A Command: “Repent and be Baptized.”
• Dual Promises: “For the forgiveness of sins” and “You shall receive the Holy Spirit.”
• Baptismal continuance: “This promise is for you and your children.”
• Geographical or Missional significance: “For all those to are far off and away.”

The interpretive key: Acts 2:38-39 DOES NOT prescribe a mode baptism. There is no “Thou shalt be immersed” nor “Thus saith the Lord.” The Word of God does not require immersion.

There is no clear-cut command in the Bible as to how the Church is to perform baptism, and anyone who asserts that there is such a command is not examining the text properly.

What would convince me to believe in immersion only baptism?

• Demonstrate a prescriptive command to immerse only.
• Demonstrate a prescriptive command not to sprinkle or pour.

Credobaptists not seeing this distinction, get themselves really tied up with how they reconcile passages of Scripture where immersion baptism is impossible to be administered.

More on this later.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

On the other hand, I do not wash my cups and pots and copper vessels by sprinkling them with water and calling it good, do you? The normal way of washing the human body is not to sprinkle a few drops of water on the forehead and call it good. Whether I take a bath or a shower I get my body thoroughly wet.

This is a joke from the Lutheran side of things.

Are you baptized if your feet get wet? No.
Are you baptized if you are in water up to your knees? No.
Waist? No
Chest? No
Neck? No
Forehead? No
Top of the head? yes!

Okay, we do get the top of your head wet. Voila, you're baptized. Bah dum dum...

 

[bbbbbbb]

This is a joke from the Lutheran side of things.

Are you baptized if your feet get wet? No.
Are you baptized if you are in water up to your knees? No.
Waist? No
Chest? No
Neck? No
Forehead? No
Top of the head? yes!

Okay, we do get the top of your head wet. Voila, you're baptized. Bah dum dum...

Thanks! I enjoyed that.

 

[TedT]

When credos say they don’t baptize infants because they can not or do not have faith, what are they actually saying?

It contradicts
Ps 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
6 Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb;
you taught me wisdom in that secret place.

 

[bbbbbbb]

It contradicts
Ps 51:5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
6 Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb;
you taught me wisdom in that secret place.

Psalm 51:5 Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me.

 

[coffee4u]

One indication that baptism had a couple of methods is Mark 7:4

Mark 7:4 - And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing (Greek βαπτισμοὺς) of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches (Greek κλινῶν).

These would have looked something along these lines and immersion would have been difficult, especially to move them to a mikvah

I don't see that washing up pots and pans has anything to do with believer baptism. But if you or your church wish to view it that way you certainly can.

 

[coffee4u]

The Orthodox fully immerse infants unless there is a medical need not to, i.e. they are on a ventillator.

Thanks for the information.

 

[coffee4u]

One of the problems I have with credobaptists, is they fail to make the distinction between a descriptive statement and prescriptive statement of Scripture.

PRESCRIPTIVE texts in Scripture prescribe what Christians are to do. They are commands. Examples:

• The Great Commission---Go and make disciples,
  
• Do this in remembrance of me.
• Love our neighbors as ourselves.
• Obedience to the Ten Commandments.

DESCRIPTIVE texts just describe what happened in the historical narrative. Examples:

• Jesus riding on a donkey on Palm Sunday.
• The early church meeting in houses.
• Casting lots for Judas' replacement.

The difference is this: a passage is descriptive if it is simply describing something that happened within a historical narrative, while a passage in prescriptive if it is specifically teaching that something should happen in the lives of Christians.

The problem comes when we interpret descriptive texts as prescriptive.

• The early church cast lots for Judas, does this mean we should cast lots when we extend a call to a pastor?
• The same could be said for meeting in a house for church. Should we today?
  
• Example of David killing Goliath because he was blaspheming God. This is a Descriptive text. If it were prescriptive then we might make the error of slinging rocks at blasphemers everywhere.

All the accounts of baptisms in the book of Acts are descriptions of baptism NOT prescriptions. There is not one text are we commanded to do baptism in a certain mode. NOT ONE.

The only place in the Book of Acts, that depict a prescription of baptism Acts 2:38-39 (which is before any NT baptism was administered). We know it is prescriptive due to the context.

• A Command: “Repent and be Baptized.”
• Dual Promises: “For the forgiveness of sins” and “You shall receive the Holy Spirit.”
• Baptismal continuance: “This promise is for you and your children.”
• Geographical or Missional significance: “For all those to are far off and away.”

The interpretive key: Acts 2:38-39 DOES NOT prescribe a mode baptism. There is no “Thou shalt be immersed” nor “Thus saith the Lord.” The Word of God does not require immersion.

There is no clear-cut command in the Bible as to how the Church is to perform baptism, and anyone who asserts that there is such a command is not examining the text properly.

What would convince me to believe in immersion only baptism?

• Demonstrate a prescriptive command to immerse only.
• Demonstrate a prescriptive command not to sprinkle or pour.

Credobaptists not seeing this distinction, get themselves really tied up with how they reconcile passages of Scripture where immersion baptism is impossible to be administered.

More on this later.

Jesus was fully immersed, we are following his example.

>>>The early church cast lots for Judas, does this mean we should cast lots when we extend a call to a pastor?
Is completely different.

What would convince me that sprinkling is a baptism would be a clear verse detailing even one such event. What do you have against full immersion?

If immersion isn't possible then that is something else again. That would be a different topic. Remember we do not believe baptism is part of being saved but done only in obedience to people who are already saved.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I don't see that washing up pots and pans has anything to do with believer baptism. But if you or your church wish to view it that way you certainly can.

I think the point is that the same word used for washing (literally baptising) pots and pans and tables is typically transliterated in other passages as baptize, or baptism. My understanding of the word is that it is probably best transliterated as washing, rather than transliterated to sound like the Greek word.

The standard means of washing pots and pans is to fully immerse them in water. The standard way to wash tables is to take a bucket of water with sponge and pour water onto the table and thoroughly wet the table and scrub it. The standard way to wash a human is to either immerse them in a bath or to fully wet them in a shower. It is not at all standard in any of these situations to toss a few drops of water on and then call it good.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Jesus was fully immersed, we are following his example.

Where in the text does it clearly state "we are to follow this example?" This is a description of a historical narrative. You are turning a descriptive statement of Scripture into a prescriptive statement of Scripture. See post #41.

The real question here is "When are Christians suppose to follow the example of Jesus in Scripture?" Answer: When Scripture specifically tells us to follow his example.

And we have a text in the NT, that tells us to follow his example....suffering on the behalf of others.

I Peter 2:20 For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God. 21 For you have been called for this purpose, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you would follow in His steps....

Scripture tells us when to follow his example. We are called to always follow his teaching...but this is a far cry by making everything that Jesus did an example. And this is a horrid way of interpreting Scripture. When we do this we get into trouble like...

• Jesus got baptized at 30 years of age....that's our example so no one should get baptized until 30 years of age.
  
• Or what about going into the desert after our baptism...we a following Jesus' example.
  
• Or what about, the only valid baptism is a Jordan River baptism. We are following Jesus example there too.
• Jesus walked on water, we too should....Jesus is our example.

We don't willy-nilly make up our own rules for interpreting Scripture to fit our pet beliefs. And we never turn a descriptive text into a prescriptive text.

Scripture will always tell us ahead of time, when to follow his example.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I'm curious about one thing for those who are Baptists or non-sacramentarians from the baptism is a sacrament camp. As a former Lutheran and now Orthodox, I've always believed that baptism has a salvific role. While immersion is preferred, it is the words of Baptism that accompany baptism that make the sacrament salvific. For those of you who don't attribute this to baptism, why do you insist that immersion is the only valid means? If it's just a thing to do, it doesn't make sense why the form is so important.

Really, it's an honest question as I've never understood the Baptist POV.

Thanks

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

If it's just a thing to do, it doesn't make sense why the form is so important.

I have often wondered about this also. For the Baptists, baptism is an empty sign and does nothing. And why they hold tenaciously to an external observance is baffling.

• Partially, I believe it is confirmation bias See Post #25.
  
• Maybe some emotionalism.
• Clearly, historical American Restorationism has apart in this...deep suspicion of all things historical...
• Many Baptist don't even consider themselves Protestants...Protestants are way too historical.

I will probably get sliced and diced for the above comments....it is a bewildering phenomena.

 

[bbbbbbb]

From a monergist standpoint, why is it necessary that everything people do must gain credit in one form or another with God? I find this particularly puzzling with Lutherans who, on one hand, are quite monergistic in their soteriology, yet, on the other hand, believe that, in baptism, humans instigate a necessary response from God. This smacks entirely of synergism.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

For Lutherans I believe, Baptism, or more specifically infant baptism is the quintessence of monergism. Infants are purely passive in receiving God's gifts.

Under the New Testament, little children are introduced into the Kingdom of Heaven by baptism, because there is no hindrance to the gracious operation of the Holy Spirit. The administration of adult baptism requires a removal of a hindrance for its effectiveness, the natural will, which is hostile to God, and resists His grace, must be subdued in repentance as a preliminary to being baptized. Infant resistance to God’s grace is impossible, because the infant has not the mental qualification for rejecting the offered grace.

Infants have one advantage over unbelieving adults. Infants do not yet have a rebellious reason. They don't have the ability to believe the cross is foolishness.

Scripture teaches that we are conceived in sin and if we grow up as unbelievers we develop a conscious reason that is hostile to the Gospel. So, unlike infants who are in a position to receive the Gospel, adults need to have their reason humbled through the preaching of God’s Word. Adults must become like “little children” or “spiritual infants” before they can receive Holy Baptism.

Adults are to be content with being passive in conversion as infants are. However, any adult can become a Pelaganian in a second because of the natural will.

Additionally, there is an important distinction to be made between baptizing an infant and an adult believer---one has the need to repent, the other does not. Failure for infants to have intricate knowledge of the Atonement is no more a barrier to baptism than to their future repentance. Furthermore, adults do need to repent, but repentance is not a one time act...what infants and adults have in common is their future repentance.

 

[The Liturgist]

Obedience to the Ten Commandments.

I am not sure these are in effect. I think the directives of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, which are obviously based on the Noachide Law, and the Pauline epistles, and the Summary of the Law, superseded them, based on what our Lord and St. Paul said about the sabbath.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

I am not sure these are in effect.

My take on this:
Hermenuetical Rule: The NT interprets the OT.

All 10 commandments of the OT are reiterated in the NT, except Sabbath Day keeping and possibly "graven images" which may or may not fall under the first commandment (which might be the reason it is not mention in the NT). This means, all the OT commandments are binding on all NT Christian everywhere except Sabbath day keeping.

Just one example:

Matthew 5 “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not murder,’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be answerable to the court.’ 22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother...

I John 3:15 Everyone who hates his brother or sister is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life remaining in him.

The NT associates hate and angry with murder. Why? Because hate and angry lead to murder. These inclinations of hate and anger is sin itself. What Jesus is doing here is giving the true intent of the law as given at Sinai, in it's expanded form in contrast to the minimalism of obedience of the Jewish leaders. Jesus brings to us the true intent of the OT commandments as binding on His Church.

So is it not the outward obedience of the Law which is our guide for Christian living, but the inward motivations for transgressing ANY commandment. Paul brings this out clearly in Romans 7, he thought he was blameless before the law, until the Law revealed what coveting was all about. A deep inward bent of selfishness.

 

[coffee4u]

Where in the text does it clearly state "we are to follow this example?" This is a description of a historical narrative. You are turning a descriptive statement of Scripture into a prescriptive statement of Scripture. See post #41.

The real question here is "When are Christians suppose to follow the example of Jesus in Scripture?" Answer: When Scripture specifically tells us to follow his example.

And we have a text in the NT, that tells us to follow his example....suffering on the behalf of others.

I Peter 2:20 For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds favor with God. 21 For you have been called for this purpose, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you would follow in His steps....

Scripture tells us when to follow his example. We are called to always follow his teaching...but this is a far cry by making everything that Jesus did an example. And this is a horrid way of interpreting Scripture. When we do this we get into trouble like...

• Jesus got baptized at 30 years of age....that's our example so no one should get baptized until 30 years of age.
  
• Or what about going into the desert after our baptism...we a following Jesus' example.
  
• Or what about, the only valid baptism is a Jordan River baptism. We are following Jesus example there too.
• Jesus walked on water, we too should....Jesus is our example.

We don't willy-nilly make up our own rules for interpreting Scripture to fit our pet beliefs. And we never turn a descriptive text into a prescriptive text.

Scripture will always tell us ahead of time, when to follow his example.

And nowhere does scripture tell us to sprinkle either. So we have come back around a full circle to: What do you have against immersion?

 

[coffee4u]

I'm curious about one thing for those who are Baptists or non-sacramentarians from the baptism is a sacrament camp. As a former Lutheran and now Orthodox, I've always believed that baptism has a salvific role. While immersion is preferred, it is the words of Baptism that accompany baptism that make the sacrament salvific. For those of you who don't attribute this to baptism, why do you insist that immersion is the only valid means? If it's just a thing to do, it doesn't make sense why the form is so important.

Really, it's an honest question as I've never understood the Baptist POV.

Thanks

Immersion symbolizes being buried and raised with Christ.
Romans 6:4
We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
Without this it isn't a baptism to us but something else, so a sprinkling would be more of a dedication. The immersion is needed to feel buried.
This would be like saying we could substitute toast and ginger beer at communion and it still being communion. That would become a meal and fellowship not communion.
There is nothing wrong with a dedication or a fellowship meal they simple stop being baptism and communion without the significant parts.

I was Christiand as an infant into the Anglican faith but later as a believer I was baptized in a creek. I think also there is something to be said for the experience in and of itself for strengthening your walk with God. An infant has no memory of it's Christening even if their church says this was that persons baptism, that person has no memory of it. This is a loss. Such a significant life event should be remembered.

Not to say that there could not be a situation where something else might have to be swapped and people make do, but that would be a very specific situation where there was no other possible solution.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

Immersion symbolizes being buried and raised with Christ.
Romans 6:4
We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

Orthodox ordinarily practice immersion. And the Russians go about it rather bravely.

 

[coffee4u]

Orthodox ordinarily practice immersion. And the Russians go about it rather bravely.

I hardly think that is necessary. I will assume this is because they wish to feel pain not just show how much of a man they are.

Anyway I hope what I said before made some sense as to why we baptize by immersion. We don't do so to feel pain or somehow do penitence.