Would you receive sprinkling?

[Revmitchell]

That is what you have been taught, however BY EXPERIENCE I have met a great number of particularly the Presbyterian folks who do not consider "sprinkling done with the intent to administer the grace of God in salvation." They take the child sprinkling as the expression much like the child dedication done in Baptist churches, and they take salvation must occur before one is "baptized" into the fellowship.

Well there ya go who can argue against your experiences. Such anecdotes do not establish doctrine in the church.

What you seem to have done is paint with a very wide and sloppy brush all sprinkling in comparison to all immersions.

Doctrine of the church but more importantly in scripture is not determined by the poor understanding of your supposed anecdotes.

There is no argument that baptism by immersion presents such a picture IF the public understand that presentation.

The picture is established by scripture. What the public understands does nothing to establish doctrine in the church.

So can sprinkling be such a public statement of identification.

Not by any stretch of the imagination.

There is nothing about being dunked that is any more right in itself as being Scriptural than being drenched by a water hose.

Except that when scripture says otherwise and precedence makes clear.

It is the message of the identification that is important not the colors used in the picture painted.

When the message says that sprinkling is needed for the administering of grace it is a huge problem.

See, here is the issue. In your view, one MUST be immersed or it isn't true baptism, NO MATTER the public perception of death burial practices. Your view must disregard the public and hold to tradition.

No not tradition scripture.

But, the fact is the picture of the death, burial and resurrection can also take place using a cave, a river, sand, a wooden box or any other method indicating covered over - including sprinkling.

Sorry sprinkling does not do that.

For example: Our Lord was baptized into a tomb and arose from that place. A cave could be used to symbolize the scene just as well as water, and it be called baptism - (immersed - in this way by a cave rather than water).

Except when scripture says otherwise.

So, it matters very little as to the method,

Except when scripture says so.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Except when scripture says so.

Yes, and the Scriptures are expressly clear to Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Roman Catholics, but to only a small minority of Baptists—the Scriptures teach baptism by affusion.

 

[Craigbythesea]

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 wooldipped(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 willbaptize(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 isimmersed(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."

The citation is incorrect; Basil did not write a treatise on water baptism. From whom and what was this “quotation” taken?

 

[Craigbythesea]

I did some research on my old denomination, didn't see anything about baptizing being used to administer grace.

http://mennoniteusa.org/confession-of-faith/baptism/

They had better not! Such a doctrine, if anyone were to come along and teach it, would be heresy of the first order—and the Roman Catholics would be the first to condemn the teaching as such, with the Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and others at their heels. I can understand a Baptist arguing against the Scriptures when they refute his church’s tradition, but I can not understand a Baptist arguing against a heresy that no one teaches.

 

[rlvaughn]

They had better not! Such a doctrine, if anyone were to come along and teach [baptizing being used to administer grace], would be heresy of the first order—and the Roman Catholics would be the first to condemn the teaching as such...

Craig, would you disagree that the following quotes from Father John A. Hardon at the Catholic Education Resource Center reflect the Roman Catholic understanding of baptism?

"Baptism first gives a person the supernatural life, whereas the other sacraments provide for the restoration, or growth, or healing, or communication of the supernatural life. As we shall see, the moment we are conceived in our mothers womb, we receive the principle of the natural life of our body, called the soul. When we are baptized, our soul receives its principle of the supernatural life. The foundation of supernatural existence is conferred by the Sacrament of Baptism."

"Baptism clearly shows what the Catholic Church understands by the sacraments. They actually give, cause if you will, the grace which they signify. There need be no deliberate contribution from a newborn child. The sacrament itself confers grace from God just because the infant is baptized."

"The baptismal character is permanent because it is timeless; it is indelible because nothing, not even the loss of faith can remove it. Therefore a baptized person always remains a Christian. Why? Because the baptismal seal confers a permanent relationship with Christ."

 

[Craigbythesea]

Craig, would you disagree that the following quotes from Father John A. Hardon at the Catholic Education Resource Center reflect the Roman Catholic understanding of baptism?

"Baptism first gives a person the supernatural life, whereas the other sacraments provide for the restoration, or growth, or healing, or communication of the supernatural life. As we shall see, the moment we are conceived in our mothers womb, we receive the principle of the natural life of our body, called the soul. When we are baptized, our soul receives its principle of the supernatural life. The foundation of supernatural existence is conferred by the Sacrament of Baptism."

"Baptism clearly shows what the Catholic Church understands by the sacraments. They actually give, cause if you will, the grace which they signify. There need be no deliberate contribution from a newborn child. The sacrament itself confers grace from God just because the infant is baptized."

"The baptismal character is permanent because it is timeless; it is indelible because nothing, not even the loss of faith can remove it. Therefore a baptized person always remains a Christian. Why? Because the baptismal seal confers a permanent relationship with Christ."

Yes, I would disagree. The Eastern Catholic Churches teach a different theology than the Roman Catholic Church which teaches a more Scriptural and less traditional theology of water baptism.

 

[rlvaughn]

Yes, I would disagree. The Eastern Catholic Churches teach a different theology than the Roman Catholic Church which teaches a more Scriptural and less traditional theology of water baptism.

Perhaps Hardon is Eastern Catholic. His biography says he was a Jesuit priest, which I thought was Roman Catholic. Isn't Pope Francis a Jesuit? Below the linked article it says of him "Father Hardon was a close associate and advisor of Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, and Mother Teresa..."

This seems pretty official, from the Vatican website, stated to be instruction that "was adopted at an Ordinary Meeting of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and was approved at an Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect by His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, who ordered its publication":

"As a person, the child is already capable of becoming, through the sacrament of Baptism, a child of God and a coheir with Christ. Later, when consciousness and freedom awake, these will have at their disposal the powers placed in the child's soul by the grace of Baptism."

Sounds like they are saying baptism confers grace.

 

[rlvaughn]

I'm curious why this topic was moved to the 'Other Christian Denominations forum? While some of the discussion has diverted to the beliefs of other denominations who practice sprinkling for baptism, the foundation of the discussion is whether Baptists will accept sprinkling as a valid form of baptism. IOW, I am not interested in whether "Other Christian Denomination" will receive sprinkling, but whether your Baptist Theology & Bible Study will allow you to do so.

??

Thanks.

 

[TCassidy]

I'm curious why this topic was moved to the 'Other Christian Denominations forum?

I suspect it may be because one of our Baptist Distinctives is "Believers Baptism by immersion upon credible testimony of faith" and there appears to be considerable participation by some who obviously don't accept that Baptist distinctive.

But I could be wrong.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Nope, you're very much correct, Dr. C.

I suspect it may be because one of our Baptist Distinctives is "Believers Baptism by immersion upon credible testimony of faith" and there appears to be considerable participation by some who obviously don't accept that Baptist distinctive.

But I could be wrong.

 

[rlvaughn]

Thanks for the explanation. I was not interested in whether "Other Christian Denominations" will receive sprinkling and what they have to say about it, but whether any who denominate themselves Baptists would -- as the OP of that thread shows a Baptist Church which is doing exactly that. So I thought the Baptist Theology & Bible Study forum was where Baptists could discuss that. But if the moderators think it better here, I don't mean to make a flop about it.

(I am surprised by the quantity of respondents who don't hold immersion as a Baptist distinctive, or even as the most scriptural form of baptism!)

 

[TCassidy]

(I am surprised by the quantity of respondents who don't hold immersion as a Baptist distinctive, or even as the most scriptural form of baptism!)

Just because someone, or a whole church full of someones, calls themselves a Baptist does not make them a Baptist.

One of my Seminary Professors once asked the class, "If you count the tail as a leg, how many legs does a dog have?" Most of the students said, "5." "WRONG," the Professor shouted! "You can call the tail anything you want to, but it is still a tail and not a leg! A dog has 4 legs!"

You can call yourself a Baptist, but a dog still has 4 legs.

 

[agedman]

Of course a baptist distinctive is - baptism. HOWEVER, the distinctive is that baptism follows conversion, and that the water, nor the dunking in the water, has not innate power or grace but is a symbol, ONLY! THAT is the distinctive. But some "Baptists" want to add to what the symbol represents, can authorize, or just how it is to be displayed. None of which can be found in the Scripture as it relates to the symbol of what baptism represents.

As such, the problem lies with Baptists who want to impose that one cannot take the communion or participate as a member of the local assembly without following immersion as the ONLY form of baptism. That removes the baptism from being a symbol to make the baptism a matter of rite of passage and requirement of inclusion, therefore it is no longer a symbol but has been given some level of authority.

My posts suggest that although immersion is the preferred method, and the one practiced by the earliest believers, AND (though I didn't post it yet) in the earliest accounts, believers who had been baptized by a heretic were generally required to be re-baptized before acceptance, I have not found a specific demand that immersion in water had to be the sole method of baptism. It most certainly probably was, but the symbolism was what was important and what the public access and understanding of the symbolism meant.

Basically the question then must resolve upon the public understanding, and not the private understanding of a closed grouping. For the earliest baptisms were public displays, held in public places in which even the heathen could at will and at their pleasure, witness. BECAUSE of the known association of baptism with both a death and changed life or determined change to be made (ex. John - baptism of repentance), there was no problem. However, in the unfortunate religiously uneducated people of our day, they associate baptism with other forms and methods, and often with other meanings.

Therefore, it is not an unreasonable question to raise as an issue of whether IN THE PUBLIC perception in which one can say, I was baptized after conversion, and that baptism was performed by a believer, and I understood that it mean the same as immersion baptism, then why is it not recognized by the local baptist assembly as valid?

It comes down to holding tradition above holding the intent of the Scriptures. The intent of Scriptures was that of a symbol and a point of identity as a believer, but have the Baptist made it more?

The same can be said about the events of the earliest church concerning the taking of communion and the elements used then compared to what the typical Baptist assembly uses, today, not to mention that the earliest accounts had it as part of a Passover Seder meal.

If Baptists are so willing to allow modification in that area, why not allow acceptable modification in the mode of baptism, too. Just as long as the baptism wasn't performed by a heathen heretic.

 

[rlvaughn]

...I have not found a specific demand that immersion in water had to be the sole method of baptism.

If we grant that baptizo means to immerse (with which some here obviously do not agree), then the command itself (Matthew 28:19-20) is a command to do so and we have no command to do anything else.

For the earliest baptisms were public displays, held in public places in which even the heathen could at will and at their pleasure, witness.

I think it is unfortunate that we have moved baptisms out of the public eye behind the walls of the church house.

 

[TCassidy]

I have not found a specific demand that immersion in water had to be the sole method of baptism.

Had the KJV translators not chickened out and lacked the courage to translate rather than transliterate the word Baptidzo there wouldn't be a problem today.

Let's see what would have happened if the translators had the gumption to translate Baptidzo.

Matthew 3:6 And were immersed of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

Matthew 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be immersed of him.

Matthew 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be immersed of thee, and comest thou to me?

Matthew 3:16 And Jesus, when he was immersed, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

Matthew 20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be immersed with the immersion that I am immersed with? They say unto him, We are able.

Matthew 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be immersed with the immersion that I am immersed with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.

Mark 1:5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all immersed of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

Mark 1:8 I indeed have immersed you in water: but he shall immerse you in the Holy Ghost.

Mark 1:9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was immersed of John in Jordan.

Mark 10:38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be immersed with the immersion that I am immersed with?

Mark 10:39 And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the immersion that I am immersed withal shall ye be immersed:

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is immersed shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Luke 3:7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be immersed of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?

Luke 3:12 Then came also publicans to be immersed, and said unto him, Master, what shall we do?

Luke 3:21 Now when all the people were immersed, it came to pass, that Jesus also being immersed, and praying, the heaven was opened,

Luke 7:29 And all the people that heard him, and the publicans, justified God, being immersed with the immersion of John.

Luke 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not immersed of him.

Luke 12:50 But I have a immersion to be immersed with; and how am I straitened till it be accomplished!

John 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and immersed.

John 3:23 And John also was immersing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were immersed.

John 4:1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and immersed more disciples than John,

John 4:2 (Though Jesus himself immersed not, but his disciples,)

John 10:40 And went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first immersed; and there he abode.

Acts 1:5 For John truly immersed in water; but ye shall be immersed in the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be immersed every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were immersed: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.

Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were immersed, both men and women.

Acts 8:13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was immersed, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.

Acts 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were immersed in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be immersed?

Acts 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he immersed him.

Acts 9:18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was immersed.

Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be immersed, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be immersed in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed immersed with water; but ye shall be immersed with the Holy Ghost.

Acts 16:15 And when she was immersed, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

Acts 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was immersed, he and all his, straightway.

Acts 18:8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were immersed.

Acts 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye immersed? And they said, Unto John's immersion.

Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily immersed with the immersion of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were immersed in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be immersed, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were immersed into Jesus Christ were immersed into his death?

1 Corinthians 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye immersed in the name of Paul?

1 Corinthians 1:14 I thank God that I immersed none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;

1 Corinthians 1:15 Lest any should say that I had immersed in mine own name.

1 Corinthians 1:16 And I immersed also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I immersed any other.

1 Corinthians 10:2 And were all immersed unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;

1 Corinthians 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all immersed 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.

1 Corinthians 15:29 Else what shall they do which are immersed for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then immersed for the dead?

Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been immersed into Christ have put on Christ.

 

[rlvaughn]

Yes, and the Scriptures are expressly clear to Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and Roman Catholics, but to only a small minority of Baptists—the Scriptures teach baptism by affusion.

Interesting that it was expressly clear to Latins, but not expressly clear to Greeks who spoke the language in which the NT was written.

 

[Craigbythesea]

Had the KJV translators not chickened out and lacked the courage to translate rather than transliterate the word Baptidzo there wouldn't be a problem today.

The honesty and integrity of the translators of the KJV gave them no choice but to transliterate the word βαπτίζω. Had they dishonestly consistently translated the word βαπτίζω as immerse, they would have been in serious error. The word βαπτίζω means to “dip” or “immerse” in only two verses in the New Testament—Luke 16:24 and John 13:26. The translators of the KJV correctly translated these two verses as follows:

Luke 16:24. And he cried, and said, Father Abraham, haue mercy on mee, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and coole my tongue, for I am tormented in this flame.

John 13:26 Iesus answered, Hee it is to whom I shall giue a soppe, when I haue dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gaue it to Iudas Iscariot the sonne of Simon.


References:

• Albrecht Oepke, Late Professor of New Testament, University of Leipzig, an article in the Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament
• Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon
• James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament
• Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based On Semantic Domains
• BDAG lexicon
  

 

[Craigbythesea]

Interesting that it was expressly clear to Latins, but not expressly clear to Greeks who spoke the language in which the NT was written.

Please document your apparent assertion that the Greek Ante-Nice Church Fathers understood the word βαπτίζω to mean “dip” or “immerse”. They knew very well what the word meant—that is, “to wash to make clean”. For very much documentation, please see the BDAG lexicon cited above.

 

[TCassidy]

• Albrecht Oepke, Late Professor of New Testament, University of Leipzig, an article in the Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament

• Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon

• James Hope Moulton and George Milligan, The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament

• Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Nida, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based On Semantic Domains

• BDAG lexicon

Oepke: A baby sprinkling Lutheran. No bias there! LOL!
Liddell: A baby sprinkling Anglican. No bias there! LOL!
Scott: A baby sprinkling Anglican. No bias there! LOL!
Moulton: A baby sprinkling Wesleyan. No bias there! LOL!
Milligan: A baby sprinkling Anglican. No bias there! LOL!
Louw: The baby sprinkling author of Baptism in the Early Church. No bias there! LOL!
Eugene Nida: The only one who comes close. But he abandoned his Baptist leanings as he grew older and became more and more ecumenical to the point of cozying up to the Roman Catholic Church for bible translation cooperative efforts. Uh. No.
And last but not least: Bauer and Danker both baby sprinkling Lutherans. No bias there! LOL! ROFLOL!

 

[Craigbythesea]

I suspect it may be because one of our Baptist Distinctives is "Believers Baptism by immersion upon credible testimony of faith" and there appears to be considerable participation by some who obviously don't accept that Baptist distinctive.

But I could be wrong.

Obviously, Cassidy is wrong! Let’s look at the two relevant Baptist Distinctives,

Two Ordinances
Local church membership is restricted to individuals who give a believable testimony of personal faith in Christ and have publicly identified themselves with Him in believer’s baptism. When the members of a local church are believers, a oneness in Christ exists, and the members can endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Acts 2:41–47; 1 Corinthians 12:12; 2 Corinthians 6:14; Ephesians 4:3

Saved, Baptized Church Membership
The local church should practice two ordinances: (1) baptism of believers by immersion in water, identifying the individual with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection, and (2) the Lord’s Supper, or communion, commemorating His death for our sins.
Matthew 28:19, 20; 1 Corinthians 11:23–32

http://www.garbc.org/about-us/beliefs-constitution/baptist-distinctives/

The wording of the Distinctive regarding the two ordinances is important. It says, “The local church should practice two ordinances.” The word ‘should,’ in its use in this sentence, indicates that the verb ‘practice’ is in the subjunctive mood rather than the indicative mood, and therefore the Distinctive is saying that the practice of the two ordinances is conditional. Several Baptists contributing to this thread have shared what they believe to be conditions that should be judiciously considered when baptizing, and I agree with them.
.
Moreover, neither of these Baptist Distinctives says nor implies that when my associate pastor (who has a Th.M. from a prominent Baptist seminary) baptized by aspersion a 103-year-old woman in a nursing home, my Baptist church suddenly became a Lutheran Church! Or, maybe my entire congregation suddenly became Lutherans when one of my assistant pastors baptized by aspersion an inmate on death row in a state penitentiary! Get real, guys! Get real! This is a Baptist discussion among Baptists!