Featured Would you receive sprinkling?

And Cassidy, being a Baptist, is not biased? I would rather believe an Anglican, Lutheran, or Methodist who knows what he is talking about than a Baptist who uses expressions such as “baby sprinkling Lutherans” for men of God who have contributed very substantially to our knowledge of the usage of the words used in the New Testament.

 

No what you would rather do is come on a Baptist forum and denigrate Baptists with your hostile attitude which has been on full display since you got here. Quite honestly I think you have a swelling dislike for Baptists. You claim to be one but there has been no evidence of that. By the way.....your bias is showing.

 

You are both correct, but your both wrong.

Part of the problem is religious consistency versus religious rigidity. The Pharisees were so rigid in their religiousness that they had to add conditions and judge others for not meeting their standard of what they considered the teaching of Scriptures.

Hence, the statement by Christ:

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others." (Matthew 23)
​

Rigid Baptists cannot except that the translation as mentioned INCLUDES other than full immersion, while others understand that it is symbolic and can include such methods.

Like I posted before, I am somewhat amazed that Baptists will quote from scholars, use the teaching of preachers and teachers, and read literature to the assembly (as if they were letters from an apostle), even sing the hymns authored by those who they would not allow to become members of their own assembly because they were not immersed when baptized, or come from someone not of the Baptist or even in agreement with the Baptists doctrine and practices.

For example the hymn, "Faith of Our Fathers" or "Silent Night."

For the record, the term Baptize INCLUDES to dip and to pour over, ceremonially wash, or undergo - as in going through yet not touched.

In the English sometimes the word is used as one who experiences events, such as in the sentence, "Baptized by fire, men pressed on courageously," or in going through an event such as the statement by our Lord recorded in Mark 10:38 "to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized"

Luke 3:16 uses the word in the sense of pouring as well as Acts 1:5.

Also, not ALL the words translated "baptize" in the NT are "baptizo." Below is taken from CARM (Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry)

"The root of the word is bapt, and the word as a whole changes form depending on usage. Here are a few cognates.

• βαπτίζω, baptidzo, baptize (Matt. 3:6, Mark 1:5, Luke 3:7, John 1:25, Acts 2:38, Rom. 6:3)
• βαπτιστής, baptistas, baptist (Matt. 3:1, 14:2, Luke 7:20, 9:19)
• βάπτισμα, baptisma, baptism (Matt. 3:7, Mark 1:4, Luke 12:50, Acts 1:22, Eph. 4:5, Col. 2:12)
• βαπτίζοντες, baptizontes, baptizing (Matt. 28:19, John 1:25, 3:22, 4:1, 10:40)
• βαπτισμῶν, baptismon, washings (Heb. 6:2)
• βαπτισμοῖς, baptismois, washings (Heb. 9:10)"

​

Perhaps those who are very understanding of the Greek will understand, and those who do not will cling to tradition and the teaching they were taught.

Frankly, in the ultimate accountability, it really doesn't matter. For baptism is symbolic, it presents no special grace nor anointing. Much like a countries flag, it represents or is one of the symbols of recognition and identification.

Baptists don't take in folks who were not baptized. They don't carry the symbol.
Baptists don't take in folks who were baptized by heathen heretics. They don't carry the symbol.
Baptists don't accept the baptism before conversion. It doesn't carry the symbol.
Baptists DO accept the baptism post conversion, in which the symbol is recognized as presenting no special grace or anointing.

What the argument continues to be is the method in which the symbol is made not the symbol itself.

That is like one contending that a flag isn't a flag if it isn't sewn together with cotton thread instead of linen, or made of plastic rather than cloth.

Just as a flag identifies the allegiance to a country, so baptism represents allegiance to Christ. HOW the flag or of what material the flag is made is of little importance, nor should it be. The identity is what is represented and is important. So to with baptism. It is the public identification with Christ that is important, or it should be.

 

If I have ever expressed hostility on the BB, it is hostility toward willful ignorance on the part of Christians regardless of their denomination, and strong displeasure of Christians, regardless of their denomination, who have no biblical evidence that supports their position, and who chose, therefore, to shamefully insult those who do. I have been a Baptist all of my Christian life, and my posts demonstrate that fact. However, some readers of my posts, who are not familiar with Baptist theology, but only their own theology, have seen that my theology differs from theirs on a point or two, and have jumped to the unlearned assumption that I am not a Baptist.

It is silly for anyone to accuse me of being biased considering the fact that although I am a Baptist, I see and recognize the truth when it is taught by Roman Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and others. Furthermore, I belong to the only Baptist denomination that I know of that that considers bias an enemy to be defeated through consecrated study of the Scriptures.

Moreover, being a Baptist is not only a matter of believing in Baptist theology (as I do); being a Baptist is also a matter of being a Christian and behaving like a Christian. When a man or a woman’s “Baptist” theology hinders that man or woman from behaving like a Christian, that theology is not Baptist—it is damnable heresy!

 

Does this post express anything other than an extreme bias and loathsome hostility toward Christians?

 

Thank you for posting these quotes that give evidence to the fact that the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers did not understand the word βαπτίζω to mean immerse. Indeed, when they wished to express the concept “to immerse,” they used a word that meant “to immerse.” When they wished to express the concept “to wash to cleans from sin,” they used the word “βαπτίζω.”

 

Thank you for sharing these quotes. I found the “Roman Catholic” quote especially interesting. By the way, the paragraph number “214” is incorrect; the correct number is “1214”. I also found paragraph 1239 especially interesting,

1239Theessential riteof the sacrament follows:Baptismproperly speaking. It signifies and actually brings about death to sin and entry into the life of the Most Holy Trinity through configuration to the Paschal mystery of Christ. Baptism is performed in the most expressive way by triple immersion in the baptismal water. However, from ancient times it has also been able to be conferred by pouring the water three times over the candidate's head.​

Additionally, I found these words in paragraph 3 to be very helpful,

This catechism is not intended to replace the local catechisms duly approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, the diocesan Bishops and the Episcopal Conferences, especially if they have been approved by the Apostolic See. It is meant to encourage and assist in the writing of new local catechisms, which take into account various situations and cultures, while carefully preserving the unity of faith and fidelity to catholic doctrine.​

As for the “Lutheran quote,” The Book of Concord, The Confessions of the LutheranChurch says in paragraphs 35-36 of the part on Holy Baptism,

35]But if they say, as they are accustomed: Still Baptism is itself a work, and you say works are of no avail for salvation; what, then, becomes of faith? Answer: Yes, our works, indeed, avail nothing for salvation; Baptism, however, is not our work, but God's (for, as was stated, you must put Christ-baptism far away from a bath-keeper's baptism). God's works, however, are saving and necessary for salvation, and do not exclude, but demand, faith; for without faith they could not be apprehended.36]For by suffering the water to be poured upon you, you have not yet received Baptism in such a manner that it benefits you anything; but it becomes beneficial to you if you have yourself baptized with the thought that this is according to God's command and ordinance, and besides in God's name, in order that you may receive in the water the promised salvation. Now, this the fist cannot do, nor the body; but the heart must believe it.​

http://bookofconcord.org/lc-6-baptism.php

 

It expresses none of that.

 

I have checked my source and it is as I gave it. I am currently on holiday and am not going to root about any further until I get home

 

Thank you for your courteous and polite reply. However, I disagree. In an earlier post in this thread, I cited the works of eleven prominent lexicographers of the New Testament and other early Christian literature, and none of them agree with your position. Indeed, I do not know of any academically recognized lexicographers of the New Testament and other early Christian literature who find any merit in your position. If you know of any such lexicographers, please bring them to my attention.

Back in my days as a student at the university, I studied (somewhat briefly) linguistics and English lexicography, and I learned about a very important theory—as concepts are conceived, words are coined to express the concepts. Tertullian used the Latin word baptizabit to express the concept of cleansing from sin (not just cleansing, but cleansing from sin); and he used the Latin word immerguntto express the mode of cleansing. As the BDAG lexicon very clearly shows by its very numerous citations, the other Ante-Nicene Church Fathers understood the concepts of baptism and immersion in the same way as did Tertullian.

Regarding Acts 22:16,

καὶ νῦν τί μέλλεις; ἀναστὰς βάπτισαι καὶ ἀπόλουσαι τὰς ἁμαρτίας σου ἐπικαλεσάμενος τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ.

We find here Luke using the Greek word meaning “to cleanse from sin,” and the Greek word meaning “to wash away.” Ananias is telling Saul to get up, be baptized, and have his sins washed away. To a Pharisee like Saul, the commandment to be baptized certainly did not mean to be immersed in water—it meant to be cleansed from sin through the ritual of Baptism (regardless of the mode). And Luke tells Saul that he will not only be cleaned from sin, but that his sins will be washed away! Why do Baptists fight this? They fight it because of their tradition regarding water baptism—and this fighting includes making false statements regarding the meaning of the word βαπτίζω, and maliciously maligning the character of everyone who is teaching the truth about water baptism.

The claim by some Baptists that the word βαπτίζω, as it is found in the New Testament, typically means “immerse” has no lexical support. As I posted above, the word βαπτίζω means to “dip” or “immerse” in only two verses in the New Testament—Luke 16:24 and John 13:26. The translators of the KJV correctly translated these two verses as follows:

Luke 16:24. And he cried, and said, Father Abraham, haue mercy on mee, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and coole my tongue, for I am tormented in this flame.

John 13:26Iesus answered, Hee it is to whom I shall giue a soppe, when I haue dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gaue it to Iudas Iscariot the sonne of Simon.

The argument that none of the eleven lexicographers were Baptists and therefore got it wrong is silly because their very numerous citations prove that they got in right. Perhaps the true story is that none of the eleven lexicographers were Baptists because they had learned the facts and knew better.

 

The word βαπτίζω means to “dip” or “immerse” in only two verses in the New Testament—Luke 16:24 and John 13:26. In neither of these verses is water baptism in view. The same is nearly true in the writings of the Greek Church Fathers. The BDAG lexicon thoroughly documents this. About two years ago, I wrote a post regarding the BDAG Lexicon and I have posted it a second time recently. For your convenience, here it is again,

By the early 1900’s, the new studies in the lexicography of Koine Greek had become so great in number and significance that Erwin Preuschen published his Greek-German lexicon in 1910. Upon his death in 1920, the revision of his lexicon was entrusted to Walter Bauer and this revision was published in 1928 as the second edition. In 1930, James Hope Mouton and George Milligan independently published The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. A thoroughly revised edition of the Preuschen lexicon was published in 1937 with only Bauer’s name on the title page. Bauer realized, however, that his lexicon, although a huge improvement over Thayer’s in terms of accuracy and completeness, needed to be thoroughly revised and updated and therefore undertook a thorough search of all Greek literature down to the Byzantine times to determine more precisely the meaning of the words found in the New Testament. This resulted in the publication of the monumental work, Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur in 1949-1952. An English translation (by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich) of this lexicon was published by the University of Chicago in 1957 with the title, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature and became widely known as the “Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich Lexicon.” A second edition was published by the University of Chicago in 1979. A thorough revision by Frederick William Danker was published by the University of Chicago in 2000. It is very commonly referred to simply as the “BDAG” and this name appears on the title page in parenthesis below the full title.

The BDAG is the standard Greek-English lexicon used in our Baptist colleges, seminaries, and universities—as well as the colleges, seminaries, and universities belonging to all of the mainline Christian Denominations. It is also used by the finest biblical scholars in the Roman Catholic Church. There is no lexicon that even begins to compare with it—and in my opinion, the use of it is essential for the serious study of the New Testament.

Where online did you find the collation?

 

I own a copy of this lexicon, and the quote from it here is inaccurate and only partial. However, Bullinger says, “By baptism therefore we must understand an immersion,” but he provides no documentation of any kind to support his view. (The incorrect punctuation in the quote is his, not mine).

I also own a copy of this lexicon, and the citation is incorrect. The correct name is A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. It is the 1957 edition that I mentioned above in this post. It became widely known as the “Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich Lexicon,” but has been superceded by the 1979 and 2000 editions (both of which I own). As is the case with all three editions of this lexicon, it relies upon a multitude of abbreviations to save room on the large, two-column pages of small print. Nonetheless, the article in the 1957 edition takes up more than a full page, and consists mostly of citation of literature that refutes the view of Bullinger.

I also own a copy of this lexicon, and it is the same antiquated (April 10, 1889 “Corrected Edition”) lexicon by Thayer that I mentioned above in this post. In this lexicon, Thayer provides two definitions with citations—one definition for literature apart from the N.T., and a second definition for literature in the N.T. To my surprise, he cites the work by T. J. Conant.

I also own a copy of this lexicon, and Abbott-Smith understands most of the verses in the New Testament to be speaking of baptism in the senses of ablution and immersion.

I do not own a copy of this 1883 lexicon, but I do own Liddell & Scott’s An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon which is based upon the 1883 edition of the larger lexicon. In this Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon, Liddell & Scott give the same meaning of βαπτίζω as does Abbott-Smith (see above).

I do own a copy of this dictionary, the 1940 edition in four volumes. In this very popular work, vine gives us this definition of βαπτίζω: baptism (with no reference to the mode of baptism).

I do not own this lexicon, and I have not yet looked at a copy of it.

I do not own this lexicon, and I have not yet looked at a copy of it.

I believe that the correct citation for this work is, Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods (From B.C. 146 to A.D. 1100) https://archive.org/details/cu31924021609395

I do not own this lexicon, and I have not yet looked at a copy of it.

I do not own this lexicon, and I have not yet looked at a copy of it.

I do not own this one volume edition, but I do own the ten-volume original (which is a translation of Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament). In volume 1, pp. 529-546, there is an article on βαπτίζω and its cognate forms by Albrecht Oepke, Late Professor of New Testament, University of Leipzig. In this article, Oepke writes of the eschatological significance of baptism and on the syntactical connections of βαπτίζειν in the New Testament without writing on the mode of baptism which he appears to believe is irrelevant.