rlvaughn,
I affirm that the theological and etymological meanigs go hand in hand. I said that. I simply sai that the etymological does not control the theological.
I have not argued that baptizo has an etymology other than immersion (though the word does also mean to wash hands). I have simply said that the theology is not bound to the etymology. (For that matter the etymology is not bound to the theology; it also takes on metaphorical meaning.) That is, the theological meaning is not restricted to the etymoogical, though again the theology is best exemplified by following the method implied by the etymology.
As for what I meant by practice, I think it is pretty clear. The normal practice, immersion, is normal for exactly the reasons that you speak of. The practice follows the theology. But to make the normal normative requires something more; it requires that we hold that the theology cannot be expressed any other way, or that the theology is contained uniquely in the practice. I don't believe that is the case here. We go to the trouble today to explain the symbolism of baptism. That can be done using other modes as well.
But again, the best mode is immersion. I affirm that, and I pracitce no other mode.
Dr. Bob,
The fact is your logic is not applied consistently. Take ekklessia for example. Like baptism it has an etymological meaning and a theological meaning. But we don't refer to churches as "called out ones" uniquely based on the etymology. Indeed, D.A. Carson, I believe, refers to that reasoning as an exegetical fallacy.
It is a mistake on your part to imply that I cannot believe in verbal plenary inspiration. I in fact affirm those things, and I am neither postmodern nor neo-orhtodox.
I am not questioning verbal plenary inspiration at all. And I take exception to the implication that unless I agree with you I do not so believe. Such coercion is not a valid form of argumentation. I am simply questioning an assumption: is a theology contained uniquely within an etymology? MUST we use the etymology of biblical words as a control for practice? What are we to say to those who have no water to be baptised in? What would have been said in the first century or the second century?
Frankly I think the etymological argument is not so strong. I think that a better argument can and should be built from a theology of baptism. I high view of baptism based on a biblical theology of baptism, is what will determine our mode. That is how I have operated, and that is why I affirm immersion except for those truly exceptional circumstances.
