converted preacher

Latreia, first I would say that the theological meaning of immersion (baptism) and immersion by immersion go hand in hand. So I would not say we are equating etymology with theology, just that they are in total agreement on this subject. Second, I would find it as far-fetched for a Greek to use the word baptizo to describe pouring water on someone as I would for an Englishman to use the word immerse to describe pouring water on someone.

I would also be interested in your definitions of the terms 'theology' and 'practice' in your statement about "practice, and the theology is what is more important." Just wondering about your usage because I have a general idea that what we really believe is demonstrated by what we do, regardless of what our theology (what we say we believe) is.

 

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.

 

On what theology or theological principle do you base the exceptions?

 

My theology of baptism is such that I believe that, as the NT shows, baptism should as closely as possible follow salvation. If there were a compelling reason to use another mode, such that the choice were, to either use another mode or deny baptism, I would use another mode. The symbolism of baptism can be explained, and the deficiency of the mode can also be explained in connection to the compelling nature the reason for using another mode. However I don't think that denying baptism to somone who has professed saving faith, can be adequately explained.

 

Thanks for the explanation. I am also an advocate of baptizing as soon as possible following a profession of faith. I have argued that position several times here on the Baptist Board. Yet I would not be able to let that principle override the other - that of symbolizing being buried with Christ in baptism and raised to walk in newness of life. For example, the eunuch was not baptized by Philip until they came to water (Acts 8:36). Surely a company traveling back to Ethiopia from Jerusalem would not be traveling without water. Yet Philip didn't get a water bottle and pour it over his head. He evidently didn't take suddenness over mode.

 

I don't think that the text of Acts suports the view that the eunuch was not baptised until a suitable amount of water was found. The text seems to indicate that the baptism simply took place as soon as the ethiopian saw some water. And it is not at all clear that there was enough water for immersion.

The question of course is: if there had been litle, would Philip have said in response to the ethiopian's question: sorry but there isn't enough water?"

 

You choose to argue over whether the body of water was sufficient to perform an immersion and miss the fact that the incident answers the "theological problem" which you assert could give reason to use pouring rather than immersion. First, to assume that the body of water was not sufficient for immersion ignores not only the etymology of the word, but New Testament practice as well. If we're going to assume, the favored assumption would be that the eunuch's baptism was like other N. T. baptisms rather than an exception. I guess they could have both gone down into the water for a sprinkling or a pouring, but that seems very unusual. But again the point is that "as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water." If your theological exception were the overriding concern, there would have been no reason for them to go on their way until they came to any body of water, no matter how shallow.

Finally, I am curious that you continue to say that "normal practice does not of itself imply normative practice" when speaking of immersion, yet do not seem to apply it to the idea "baptism should as closely as possible follow salvation." If so applied why does the one "normal practice" override the other "normal practice." "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."

[ January 20, 2003, 12:29 AM: Message edited by: rlvaughn ]

 

Bro. Robert, you stole my answer!

The came unto a certain water. Our Pastor preached on this exact thing Sunday.

Also, I noticed that no response has been made since this post. Perhaps, someone is embarrassed to admit that they were wrong.

God Bless. Bro. James