Featured Would you receive sprinkling?

Read an article today in the Biblical Evangelist about the editor's church which caught on fire in 1951 one afternoon and burned to the ground.

The church was having a revival that week and were planning on baptizing about 20 new believers that night. The cause of the fire--the baptismal heater malfunctioned!

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo.

 

Until today, I had never heard of T. J. Conant or his book that was first published in 1860—when Greek lexicography was still in the dark ages!

By the early 1900’s, the new studies in the lexicography of Koine Greek had become so great in number and significance that Erwin Preuschen published his Greek-German lexicon in 1910. Upon his death in 1920, the revision of his lexicon was entrusted to Walter Bauer and this revision was published in 1928 as the second edition. In 1930, James Hope Mouton and George Milligan independently published The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament. A thoroughly revised edition of the Preuschen lexicon was published in 1937 with only Bauer’s name on the title page. Bauer realized, however, that his lexicon, although a huge improvement over Thayer’s in terms of accuracy and completeness, needed to be thoroughly revised and updated and therefore undertook a thorough search of all Greek literature down to the Byzantine times to determine more precisely the meaning of the words found in the New Testament. This resulted in the publication of the monumental work, Griechisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der übrigen urchristlichen Literatur in 1949-1952. An English translation (by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich) of this lexicon was published by the University of Chicago in 1957 with the title, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature and became widely known as the “Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich Lexicon.” A second edition was published by the University of Chicago in 1979. A thorough revision by Frederick William Danker was published by the University of Chicago in 2000. It is very commonly referred to simply as the “BDAG” and this name appears on the title page in parenthesis below the full title.

When I referred you to the BDAG lexicon, it was to this lexicon, specifically pages 164-165.

The Greek Ante-Nicene Church Fathers certainly knew how the word βαπτίζω was used in the New Testament, and the BDAG lexicon documents that understanding. To be specific, they understood the word βαπτίζω to mean virtually the same thing that it does in the Septuagint—that is, “washing to make something clean.” Therefore, they understood water baptism to be God’s means of washing away the sins of the truly repentant sinner—either by immersion or affusion. However, it is widely agreed by today’s scholars that the most common mode of baptism in the Ante-Nicene Church was immersion, probably because immersion does a more thorough job of washing than does pouring. This also explains, of course, why they believed that one’s baptism should be performed in running rather than standing water.

 

No, I am not. I am thinking of the very early Baptists who came out of the Anglican Church in England, and continued, for a short time, to baptize by affusion rather than immersion.

As for the rest of your post, I have already addressed your concerns.

 

The Greek fathers knew that βαπτίζω means to 'immerse' and Baptists may be entirely confident that immersion is the Biblical form of baptism. I quoted four Church Fathers earlier, each of whom plainly held that baptism involved immersion and none of whom held that the word meant cleansing.

In case four isn't sufficient, here is Basil the Great (On Baptism, Book 1, Chap 2, 10 ), commenting on Rom 6:3:
"We were baptized (Gk. Baptizo ), says he, in order that from it we might learn this: that as wool dipped (Gk. Baptizo) in a dye is changed as to its colour; or rather (using John the Baptist as a guide, when he prophesied of the Lord, “He will baptize (Gk. Baptizo) you in the Holy Spirit and fire”)….let us say this: that as steel, immersed (Gk. Baptizo) in the fire kindled up by spirit (wind), becomes more easy to test whether it has any fault, and more ready for being refined;…..so it follows and is necessary, that he who is immersed (Gk. Baptizo) in fire (that is the word of instruction, which convicts of the evil of sin and shows the grace of justification) should hate and abhor unrighteousness, as it is written, and should desire to be cleansed though faith in the power of the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ."
Whether the person baptized, the wool, the steel, the text refers to something being placed into a substance and then withdrawn; in other words, immersion.

Having said that, the fact that βαπτίζω does indeed mean 'immerse' should not cause us to make baptism into a shibboleth. As I wrote earlier, God looks at the heart, and those who for one reason or another cannot endure baptism by immersion should not be denied full participation in the church if their heart is right with God.

 

Streams, rivers, and lakes are nice, but mikvehs were probably a lot more handy.



Photo credit: Yours Truly

 

They also remove the baptism from symbolic and make it as conditional to some extension of God's grace or "in obedience to His command."

I recall carrying water to the wood stove to heat it for washing. What was interesting was the communal bathing. One tub of water would last for all the children, then another tub for the mom and dad. Bathing was about as exciting as traveling through the winter snow to go potty. What a day of rejoicing when the pipe was laid from the lake to the kitchen hand pump.

Still do. We rarely use the dishwasher. With what very few dishes we use, it is just cheaper and easier to fill a pan or one part of the sink to wash and then rinse.

I have a friend who tells the story of visiting the grandparents after they were married. It was a small house, and so they all bunked in the single bedroom. During the night the bed chamber pot was used by the grandmother. They could hardly keep from giggling like two teenagers.

There are times for sprinkling and times for immersion.

 

Basil was not one of the Ante-Nice Church Fathers. Therefore, his writings are irrelevant to our discussion. However, may I ask you what website you quoted from?

 

Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Athanasius, and Gregory of Nazianus were not Ante-Nicene Church Fathers.

 

Please familiarize yourself with the proper use of the word ‘mantra’. Please also familiarize yourself with the culture of the Mediterranean peoples during the Hellenistic period so that you can avoid posting nonsense and making Baptists look like intellectually challenged baboons.

 

The Ante-Nicene Church Fathers typically baptized by immersion, but the Roman Catholic Church decided that the sacrament of water baptism should be performed scripturally, and the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Church, the Methodist Church, the Presbyterian church, the Church of the Nazarene, and many other churches have followed suit (with some small variations).

For a detailed scriptural defense of affusion rather than immersion, please see here:

http://www.imarc.cc/baptize/waswift.html

As I have previously posted, I am a Baptist, and my church baptizes candidates for baptism by immersion whenever doing so is reasonably possible—which is about 98% of the time. However, my church clearly recognizes the fact that we Baptists are in a small minority in our interpretation of the Scriptures pertaining to water baptism, and therefore my church does not withhold membership to applicants for membership who were baptized by affusion or aspersion rather than immersion.

 

I know much more than the dictionary definitions of the word, and I know how Cassidy used the word in his post—and that use was malicious, slanderous, and sinful to the core. Such behavior among those who present themselves as being Christians deeply saddens me because such behavior brings disgrace to the Christian faith and destroys its influence!

 

If the practices of my church were not much more closely in line with the Scriptures than are many other Baptist churches, I would be deeply ashamed. Moreover, if the Scriptures are so poorly worded that no one could understand them until some Christians called Baptists came along in the 17th century and explained them, the Scriptures were written by a pack of fools with ridiculously poor writing skills! But—that is not at all the case! The Scriptures were so very well written that the very large majority of the Church has been able, from the beginning, to understand them when the individual Christians read them for themselves—thus testifying to their inspiration by the Lord God.

I do not presume to know the proper meaning of the word βαπτίζω just because I am a Baptist; and I do not presume to know the proper mode of baptism just because I am a Baptist. As I have posted before, nothing, absolutely nothing is more important to me than the truth—not my wife, not my children, not my dog, not my job, and not my life! Absolutely nothing is more important to me than the truth. And if that means putting aside one or two non-scriptural Baptist traditions—so be it.

 

You have talked about ante-Nicene fathers, I haven't. I have talked about Church Fathers.
I have taken all the quotations from the book by Conant that I mentioned. Fine book! I recommend it to you.

 

For those who believe that God is displeased if a Baptist church recognizes a mode of baptism other than immersion, do you think God is displeased when modern American Baptist churches substitute grape juice for wine in communion?

 

You actually think this is a legitimate comparison?