I would be willing to bet you tell people the proper way to baptize is submerging. Why do you do that if there is no command to submerge?
I do consider the appropriate way to baptize is to be "submerged" because the word "baptizo" has that as it's meaning (to make fully wet, immerse).
Is it because there is an example bound up in the word? The same with baptizing right after confession. Baptism is a command and the evidence all supports immediate baptizing, not doing classes or waiting because not having a fancy baptistery.
The word has no meaning within itself as to who, when, where, how often...
These are all concerns given by tradition and example to the early church's local assembly.
Of course some (as in the Corinthian gathering) had to be corrected, and so the example given to the Lord's Supper of it being a high holy worship experience and not a place of frivolity and excess, is by that same example placed upon the baptism.
I am most disheartened when I hear and see outbursts of the fleshly sort (evidenced by the body language) at the celebration of any ordinance.
You have the Holy Spirit telling one person the right way is to submerge and another to sprinkle. Are you sure that is what you want to say? You are trying to use the Spirit to justify differences and all the while making a mockery of how He works. He does not tell one person one way and another a different. Just listen to yourself. Your argument totally stands against scripture as well as logic and now you are saying things that make no sense to justify your position.
I think you are placing the actual elements above their station. You mentioned that Romanist. They consider that the elements of the Lord's table to be the actual body and blood of Christ. Perhaps you are attempting to lift baptism to that standard. It is not. Throughout the ages, there are many causes that can be exampled (I gave you one) of why one could not be "immersed." That does not make the word or work of the Holy Spirit any less valuable to that assembly or that person.
Is immersion the best way. Yes, undoubtedly. The same as taking the unleavened cracker and juice is better than having it done through a feeding tube.
I hold that the Scriptures speak strongly against any non-prescribed intoxicant. However, if I held that assemblies serving the liquid intoxicant at the Lord's Supper is a sin because it isn't "following the Scriptures" I would be in violation of the spirit of the ordinance - the Holy Spirit. Who then would be in a "state of sin?" Besides not all would agree with my view of intoxicants.
My argument has be consistent with Scripture, and the earliest church assembly practices.
By the way. If a person is so ill they cannot be Baptized properly just forget it. The thief on the cross was not baptized so don't make a mockery out of it by deciding one way for some and another for others. If we can do that then we can change the plan of salvation. By the way many already do right on this board.
My but such arguments as you would offer!
There is no mockery made when one is immersed in a certain way other than horizontal.
The Scriptures teach that baptism occurred in various forms.
The children of Israel were "baptized" and they tread on solidly dry ground.
The Holy Spirit baptizes the believer through suffering.
Jesus asked the disciples, "Can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?"
Peter said it this way, "The
like figure where unto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the
answer of a good conscience toward God,) by
the resurrection of Jesus Christ: Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him."
The idea that it is a picture - a "like figure."
How one is treated at death has little to do with them being dead.
The Egyptians mummified so did other groups, some embalm, some bury facing a certain direction, some buried and later dug up the bones so others could occupy the burial spot.
FAL, It isn't HOW ONE IS treated at death or even buried.
It is the "like figure" - it is the resurrection that matters. "Raised to walk in newness of life" is what the typical Baptist would state as they raise one up out of the water.
Just as an assembly can determine among their own group what constitutes the juice, they can also determine among themselves what constitutes the burial.
The rest of the post seems to be a desire to extreme the position into other areas. I don't know why.
