Baptism - Sprinkled or Dunked?

[Charlie24]

Oh, ok, I see! Then to you that's what it is.

If you decide you would like to discuss it further in the future, I'll be around.

 

[Cathode]

Oh, ok, I see! Then to you that's what it is.

For us Baptism is that spiritual Circumcision, nowhere in all preceding Christianity before Zwingli was Baptism taught to be merely symbolic. I couldn’t find it, all the ancient Churches East and West unanimously taught that Baptism was the spiritual Circumcision, was Regeneration and given to infants.

That’s why the other reformers looked at Zwingli like he was nuts. He was up against the entirety of the Christian world and all preceding for 1500 years.

It was a new crazy idea Zwingli interpreted from scripture.

So you can either accept the Authority of all of the Christian world universally back to the Apostles or accept Zwingli on his own.

 

[Cathode]

I just thought of something else to add to the conversation.

1 Cor. 1:17

"For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect."

Paul didn't water baptize but a very few in the beginning of his ministry. His associates and helpers did the water baptizing.

This is water baptism he is here speaking of. He let them do the water baptizing, because God didn't send Paul out to water baptize, God sent Paul out to preach the Gospel where the Holy Spirit reaches in the heart and spiritually baptizes.

Anyone can baptise, provided they use the right formula of words, have the intention to do as the church requires, and performs the proper actions.

Paul’s main mission was to preach the gospel, this is correct, Jesus sent him for the proclamation of the Faith.

 

[Charlie24]

Anyone can baptise, provided they use the right formula of words, have the intention to do as the church requires, and performs the proper actions.

Paul’s main mission was to preach the gospel, this is correct, Jesus sent him for the proclamation of the Faith.

Remember when John the Baptist came along and said this,

Matt. 3:11

"I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:"

This is the spiritual baptism of Colossians 2 and Romans 6. It's the circumcision of Christ, the circumcision made without hands.

It's what we call the born-again experience.

You've probably heard the old preachers especially in the 1800's preach on it. This is before the Pentecostal Movement came around 1900 and got it all mixed up with their baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is entirely a different baptism.

 

[37818]

The real conjecture is that infants weren’t baptised.

To allow your view, that would have to be. But I am a Baptist.
Believing in believer's mmersion. Being distinct from the gospel.
Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 1:17, For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: . . .

 

[Marooncat79]

Baptized (full immersion in church baptistry of the Fourth Baptist Church of Minneapolis) on Easter Sunday (April 5, 1958) a year after I was born again.

My wife Teresa was baptized by immersion THE SAME DAY 860 miles away in the baptistry of Calvary Baptist Church of Casper, Wyoming.

Always smile when I see artists' portrayal of John baptizing Jesus standing waist-deep in the Jordan River and John dribbling a few drops on Jesus' head. Defies imagination how a dribble on the brow replaced going down into the water, buried, rose again and up out of the water.

John 3:23

Why would it matter if “there was much water there” if JtB was baptizing there?

It takes very little to sprinkle, but a lot or “much” seems to have mattered to the text

 

[Cathode]

Remember when John the Baptist came along and said this,

Matt. 3:11

"I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance. but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:"

This is the spiritual baptism of Colossians 2 and Romans 6. It's the circumcision of Christ, the circumcision made without hands.

It's what we call the born-again experience.

You've probably heard the old preachers especially in the 1800's preach on it. This is before the Pentecostal Movement came around 1900 and got it all mixed up with their baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is entirely a different baptism.

“One Lord, one faith, one baptism”


“Now, seeing that they [Pelagians] admit the necessity of baptizing infants,–finding themselves unable to contravene that authority of the universal Church, which has been unquestionably handed down by the Lord and His apostles,–they cannot avoid the further concession, that infants require the same benefits of the Mediator, in order that, being washed by the sacrament and charity of the faithful, and thereby incorporated into the body of Christ, which is the Church, they may be reconciled to God, and so live in Him, and be saved, and delivered, and redeemed, and enlightened. But from what, if not from death, and the vices, and guilt, and thraldom, and darkness of sin? And, inasmuch as they do not commit any sin in the tender age of infancy by their actual transgression, original sin only is left.” Augustine, On forgiveness of sin and baptism, 39[26] (A.D. 412).

 

[Cathode]

To allow your view, that would have to be. But I am a Baptist.
Believing in believer's mmersion. Being distinct from the gospel.
Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 1:17, For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: . . .

I talked about that verse with Charlie.

 

[37818]

I talked about that verse with Charlie.

Baptism bring distinct from the gospel.
Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 1:17, For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: . . .

Romans 1:16, ". . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . ."

 

[Charlie24]

“One Lord, one faith, one baptism”


“Now, seeing that they [Pelagians] admit the necessity of baptizing infants,–finding themselves unable to contravene that authority of the universal Church, which has been unquestionably handed down by the Lord and His apostles,–they cannot avoid the further concession, that infants require the same benefits of the Mediator, in order that, being washed by the sacrament and charity of the faithful, and thereby incorporated into the body of Christ, which is the Church, they may be reconciled to God, and so live in Him, and be saved, and delivered, and redeemed, and enlightened. But from what, if not from death, and the vices, and guilt, and thraldom, and darkness of sin? And, inasmuch as they do not commit any sin in the tender age of infancy by their actual transgression, original sin only is left.” Augustine, On forgiveness of sin and baptism, 39[26] (A.D. 412).

Augustine is part of the reason Calvin got it wrong, having such an influence.

Not even a hint of it in Scripture.

 

[Mike Stidham]

“One Lord, one faith, one baptism”


“Now, seeing that they [Pelagians] admit the necessity of baptizing infants,–finding themselves unable to contravene that authority of the universal Church, which has been unquestionably handed down by the Lord and His apostles,–they cannot avoid the further concession, that infants require the same benefits of the Mediator, in order that, being washed by the sacrament and charity of the faithful, and thereby incorporated into the body of Christ, which is the Church, they may be reconciled to God, and so live in Him, and be saved, and delivered, and redeemed, and enlightened. But from what, if not from death, and the vices, and guilt, and thraldom, and darkness of sin? And, inasmuch as they do not commit any sin in the tender age of infancy by their actual transgression, original sin only is left.” Augustine, On forgiveness of sin and baptism, 39[26] (A.D. 412).

We recently had this discussion with the pastor of the Southern Baptist church we're joining. I was baptized in that same church so no problem there.
However, my wife had been baptized twice: once by sprinkling in the Methodists after she got saved in high school, and once by immersion when she married her first husband, whose father was a Christian Church pastor. (It didn't seem to take with his son, who was arrested and convicted on pedophilia charges...which ended their marriage.) Now after that, she wasn't wild about the thought of getting immersed again. After talking with the pastor, he was satisfied that she had been baptized properly since she was a Christian at the time of baptism regardless of the Christian Church's beliefs.

 

[Cathode]

Augustine is part of the reason Calvin got it wrong, having such an influence.

Not even a hint of it in Scripture.

Everyone got it wrong according to your analysis. Think about it. Why are all the Early Church wrong on interpretation of scripture and you right.?

What makes your interpretations of Scripture better than their unanimous and consistent and universal interpretation of Scripture?

They are all quoting the scripture to mean Baptismal Regeneration.

Are you saying everyone was stupid for the first 1500 years, or didn’t have Scriptures or something? Read them, you will see very quickly, they certainly aren’t stupid, and they knew the scriptures back to front.

Are you saying Augustine and all the great Fathers and scholars of Christianity were morons on a fundamental and basic interpretation and tenet of Christian doctrine?

Could you have got it wrong instead ?

 

[Dr. Bob]

After talking with the pastor, he was satisfied that she had been baptized properly since she was a Christian at the time of baptism regardless of the Christian Church's beliefs.

Most Baptist churches (in the North) will accept believer's baptism by immersion from another church of "like faith". We would not accept such act from a non-trinitarian cult (like Jesus Only baptism of Oneness Pentecostal) or from a church that taught immersion was part of earning salvation and not simply symbolic obedience (like some Christian Church groups).

 

[Cathode]

Augustine is part of the reason Calvin got it wrong, having such an influence.

Not even a hint of it in Scripture.

Interesting that Augustine is making the same argument I’m making about infant baptism 1600 years later.

Infant baptism was universal Christian practice.

“Now, seeing that they [Pelagians] admit the necessity of baptizing infants,–finding themselves unable to contravene that authority of the universal Church, which has been unquestionably handed down by the Lord and His apostles”

 

[Charlie24]

Everyone got it wrong according to your analysis. Think about it. Why are all the Early Church wrong on interpretation of scripture and you right.?

What makes your interpretations of Scripture better than their unanimous and consistent and universal interpretation of Scripture?

They are all quoting the scripture to mean Baptismal Regeneration.

Are you saying everyone was stupid for the first 1500 years, or didn’t have Scriptures or something? Read them, you will see very quickly, they certainly aren’t stupid, and they knew the scriptures back to front.

Are you saying Augustine and all the great Fathers and scholars of Christianity were morons on a fundamental and basic interpretation and tenet of Christian doctrine?

Could you have got it wrong instead ?

I'm saying that after the 1st century, with all those now gone who had seen Christ, listened to Him, touched Him, the Church apostatized.

The Reformers were indoctrinated with this apostacy, but thank God, He spoke to the heart of Martin Luther while he was walking up the supposed "Holy Stairs" in Rome on his knees, he remembered from the Scripture "the just shall live by faith."

The Reformation is now officially ready to begin, with Luther leading the way.

 

[Charlie24]

I'm saying that after the 1st century, with all those now gone who had seen Christ, listened to Him, touched Him, the Church apostatized.

The Reformers were indoctrinated with this apostacy, but thank God, He spoke to the heart of Martin Luther while he was walking up the supposed "Holy Stairs" in Rome on his knees, he remembered from the Scripture "the just shall live by faith."

The Reformation is now officially ready to begin, with Luther leading the way.

The Reformers did not have all the Truth, they made huge mistakes in doctrine, but thank God they pointed us back to Christ in faith, and out of that apostasy the Church had evolved into.

 

[Charlie24]

The Reformers did not have all the Truth, they made huge mistakes in doctrine, but thank God they pointed us back to Christ in faith, and out of that apostasy the Church had evolved into.

You see, Cathode, the RCC is filled with apostasy, the doctrines of men. God showed Martin Luther that while he was going up those stairs on his knees tracing the supposed drops of Christ's blood.

The RCC is all about traditions, false tradition created by man. They departed from faith to works through those traditions.

 

[Charlie24]

You see, Cathode, the RCC is filled with apostasy, the doctrines of men. God showed Martin Luther that while he was going up those stairs on his knees tracing the supposed drops of Christ's blood.

The RCC is all about traditions, false tradition created by man. They departed from faith to works through those traditions.

I'm not here to offend anyone or to make enemies, but I will proclaim the faith the Reformers restored to us with no apologies!

 

[37818]

Infant baptism was universal Christian practice.

Infant baptism was never a first century Christian practice.

 

[Cathode]

I'm saying that after the 1st century, with all those now gone who had seen Christ, listened to Him, touched Him, the Church apostatized.

Right, so the gates of Hell totally and universally prevailed against the Church after the Apostles and the entirety Christianity was deceived for 1500 years until Zwingli declared baptism was only symbolic.

Maybe the gates of Hell didn’t prevail against the Church for 1500 years as Jesus promised it wouldn’t and Zwingli was the one that apostatised.

I’d sooner believe in Bigfoot than your version of events.

Your saying the gates of Hell prevailed against Christianity entire for 1500 years, which makes Jesus words a lie.

So everyone was wrong and totally deceived in apostasy for the first 1500 years, and Jesus words are false?

Here is what is most likely by far. Zwingli was the one that apostatised, and those that follow his minority niche heresy today are deceived.