Is a Presbyterian church much different?

[Ronnie Vaughan]

Why would we need instructions on how to baptize (or immerse)? Actually, why do we even call it Baptism by immersion; isn't that just immersion by immersion?

 

[Salty]

Why would we need instructions on how to baptize (or immerse)? Actually, why do we even call it Baptism by immersion; isn't that just immersion by immersion?

Because baptism can be immersion, pouring or sprinking.

 

[Ronnie Vaughan]

Actually no it can't - baptism is "immersion". Poring or sprinkling can't be immersion even if a paedobaptist says otherwise.

 

[Salty]

Actually no it can't - baptism is "immersion". Poring or sprinkling can't be immersion even if a paedobaptist says otherwise.

I agree - poring and sprinkling is NOT immersion. But baptism - can be any of the three- thus the reason we say "Baptism by immersion"

Remember - the KJV was translated by the Anglican church - who are the kissing cousins of the RCC
They transliterated the word baptizo as baptism - which does permit sprinkling or pouring.

 

[Jerome]

But baptism - can be any of the three....Remember - the KJV was translated by the Anglican church - who are the kissing cousins of the RCC
They transliterated the word baptizo as baptism - which does permit sprinkling or pouring.

No!
English Bible translators did not invent the word baptism. It is not a transliteration either. Baptism had been an English word for centuries already, it meant "dip, immerse", context of the church.
In Great Britain at that time baptism could not be "any of the three". Book of Common Prayer specified the child was to be "dipped". King James himself was baptized (immersed) as a baby. The era circa 1645-1660 was when the proper mode was discarded, when the Westminster Divines' Directory for Public Worship mandated that sprinkling/pouring be done instead of actual baptism.