Baptism

Yes, the whole point of a physical baptism is to illustrate the spiritual baptism of the Holy Spirt in our identification with the Savior's death, burial, and resurrection. If baptism is a symbol and you then make a symbol of the symbol with pouring and sprinkling then what next? A picture of water and have a symbol of a symbol of a symbol. How do you want the Holy Spirit? A little sprinkled on, or a little poured on your head, or do you want to be whelmed with it? When we bury someone, do we sprinkle a little dust on their head, or do we pour a little dirt on them, or do we completely submerge them in dirt. I guess nowadays we need to baptize people a full six feet under water!!! (Just kidding)

 

I believe Baptism my Immersion to be the most accurate and proper form. It is true however that the Reformation Anabaptists did not regard the mode as important as long as it was Believer's baptism. The first Anabaptist baptism was by affusion.

It also seems that the first 30 years of the Baptist movement that Baptists did not regard the mode as important as long as it was Believer's baptism. Between 1638-44 Baptists developed the conviction that Immersion was the correct mode and confessions such as the 1644 London and 1655 Midland espouse Immersion. Before 1644 there does not seem to be that great of emphasis on the mode as long as it was believer's baptism.

I know of a Baptist Church a few years ago baptized a man by affusion because of his health. The man was dying of cancer but was converted a few weeks before he died. He insisted that he be baptized though he was unable to get into a baptistry. He instead was baptized in his bath tub by the Pastor pouring water on him from a bucket. He died probably a week or 2 later. Do I believe he had Biblical baptism? Absolutely I do and praise God for his faith.

 

This is one I have never understood. How can sprinkling be an image of anything, let alone repentance or washing away of sins. The idea that, "a little dab 'il do ya" isn't much of an image. Pouring is only slightly more of an image and might be appropriate for some things but since it is not the image presented in the Bible I find it unacceptable to use as a substitute for the real thing. The thief on the cross was never baptized Biblically and I understand he is doing quite well now. It is better to have no baptism than to have something just so we can call it a baptism.

 

Who says it's not an image just because you don't see it as such? Don't get me wrong, I'm in favor of baptism via immersion. But it is based primarily on biblical custom on the mandate, not because of my perception of what does and does not constitute an "image".

 

So I can draw a picture of a horse and call it the image of a tree?

An image means it LOOKS like what it is supposed to be representing.....in this case the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

 

You can draw a picture of a sapling and rightfully call it a tree. I might not see it as a tree, but it is a tree nonetheless.

We should be careful here. While baptism (via immersion) is a great and wonderful symbol, it is a symbol nonetheles, and has no significance and importance out of being so. We must refrain from giving any indication that we place importance in benign works as being an issue or litmus test for salvation, faith, or commitment to one's Lord.

I always found it amusing that we are so strict on our views on baptism, yet we use pasteurized grape juice and simple little wafers in communion.

 

Who says it's an image just because you do see it as such?

It isn't like a Rorschach Test where perception is the heart of the matter. It either is or it isn't an image. Immersion is not merely my preferred mode of baptism, I believe that it is the only mode of baptism. I do not believe that we can substitute any more than Aaron's sons could make their substitution.

 

It is such to those who behold it. If a body of believers views, say, pouring, as a valid mode of baptism, and one of their own who agrees with it chooses such, then who am I to say their viewing of such is wrong, just because I view immersion as the only valid mode? (though I guess that's technically not true, since our church has accommodated persons who are physically incapable of being immersed).

While I personally agree, it is still worth mentioning that we hold a strict view on baptism, yet we use pasteurized grape juice and simple little wafers in communion (which is a huge difference from the last supper). In other words, we baptists aren't always consistent. I'm okay with that.

 

Gold Dragon, thanks for the reply.

I don't really comprehend a position that holds that sprinking and pouring are neither acceptable nor unacceptable forms of baptism. I guess I just can't fathom this third category which seems like a kind of limbo to me. I guess I see (kind of) how you get there if you think the acceptability or non-acceptability of any mode is not addressed by the Bible. Of course, I would not agree with you on that subject, with my understanding that the Bible teaches and presents apostolic practice as normative. I do think, however, that quite a few Baptists have painted themselves into a corner, in that they DO NOT believe apostolic practice is normative yet still try to hold on to some beliefs and/or practices that are based on apostolic practices rather than commands. In the case of baptism, though, a case can be made for the church being commanded to baptize and individuals being commanded to be baptized (which is immerse in the language and immersion in the way it was carried out).

I agree with you that New Testament communion was with wine rather than grape juice. I advocate that practice. But I don't think your argument concerning wine/juice is exactly parallel to this extent: many, if not most, would argue that they believe juice was used and so would claim to be following what they thought was biblical. In most cases which which I'm familiar, those who advocate sprinkling or pouring do not bother to defend it biblically; they think it doesn't matter.

Perhaps a better parallel to using sprinkling and/or pouring for baptism would be if one used coca-cola and pork rinds for communion. To me there seems to be no end of variations according to anybody's preferences and opinions if we don't stick to biblical examples.

Why is baptism by drinking, as mentioned in another thread, not another way one could demonstrate their union with Christ? Someone could find some verse to support it. Perhaps I Cor. 12:13 - For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

[ November 08, 2005, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

I have discussed apostolic practice as normative in some past threads. For me that is really the underlying issue that must be hammered out before moving on to other things like baptism, plurality of elders, etc. But I don't intend to expend the time and energy right now to delve into that much deeper. I tried the search feature to find the threads, so I could link them and not have to re-write what I've already written, but couldn't find them. They may have been deleted.

I would maintain that these two are the same group. It's just two ways of saying the same thing. Ultimately they believe practices they agree with are normative and those with which they differ are not.

The point is not whether they are a majority or even right. I would say they are not. But the point is that the original argument was not parallel because they think they are right rather than thinking it doesn't matter.

In what way do you apply Romans 14 to this issue, or rather, how do you conclude it applies to this issue?

While we might charge some Baptists with being hypocitical by overemphasizing "symbols", I suppose we might charge other Baptists with being arrogant in assuming to know better than Christ and the apostles which "symbols" they wanted. Perhaps it is best we not make any charges, but rather suppose each is endeavoring to believe and practice what he or she thinks is correct. Even though I think your sincerely held belief is wrong in this area, I have no reason to believe other than that you hold this because you think you are holding what the Bible teaches. Whether or not we are hypocritical, though, I feel some of us think that the symbols that Jesus chose and that the apostles continued were not chosen thoughtlessly or without reason, but are valuable in their symbolic element to carry the intended message. Beyond that I suppose some of us would think ultimately they are good enough simply because Jesus chose them, whether we ever understand why.

I don't think your discomfort invalidates it either. But with baptism it should be noted that the church was commanded to baptize and individuals were commanded to be baptized (which is immerse in the language and immersion in the way it was carried out). For example, when Jesus said, "Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them" - if I understand the language, He said, "immersing them in the name of..." and not "sprinkling them in the name of..." or "giving them water to drink in the name of...". Or when Peter said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you...", he did not say, "Repent, and be poured upon every one of you..." or "Repent, and drink water every one of you..."