Luk 18:15-17 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.
2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus
Luk 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
Yet todays Baptist church would discriminate against such as these - EVEN JOHN THE BAPTIST.
Presbyfacts wrote:WHY Baptist?The basis behind founding a denomination upon "baptism" and seeking to identify with and in, this, is to provide a greater human participation, than paedobaptism allows or is perceived to secure.This is why profession and immersion emerged in recent centuries, in *OPPOSITION* to covenantal infant baptism.It is as if there was a kind of reactive resistance against the historic church sacrament. Even as we have seen down to changing the term sacrament itself. But reaction does not make for theologically or Biblically correct. It simply implies another method was brought to bear upon the ceremony, and support elicited from theology for it.Hence the establishing of a new denomination.
Where did "Presbyterian" polity exist before the Reformation?
As for the rest of the rubbish about immersion arriving late on the scene etc. this has been sufficiently debunked in other threads on this site.
The basis behind founding a denomination upon "baptism" and seeking to identify with and in, this, is to provide a greater human participation, than paedobaptism allows or is perceived to secure.
This is why profession and immersion emerged in recent centuries, in *OPPOSITION* to covenantal infant baptism.
It is as if there was a kind of reactive resistance against the historic church sacrament. Even as we have seen down to changing the term sacrament itself. But reaction does not make for theologically or Biblically correct. It simply implies another method was brought to bear upon the ceremony, and support elicited from theology for it.Hence the establishing of a new denomination.
Look at this again as you ponder Acts 8:36-38
From the King JamesTitus 3:5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour
In verse #5 - washing - λουτρόν (loutron - loo-tron') - a bath, that is, (figuratively) Baptism: - washing.
*Please note that "washing" - λουτρόν in verse #5 is from the Greek word λούω (louō - loo'-o) - A primary verb; to bathe (*THE WHOLE PERSON*); whereas νίπτω means to wet part only, [to cleanse (especially the hands or the feet or the face); ceremonially to perform ablution: - wash].
The word "washing" in verse #5 is referring to Baptism with water by the washing of the entire person head to toe (COMPLETELY WET) !!!
Romans 6:4 ... we are BURIED with him BY BAPTISM into death: that like as Christ was RAISED UP from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
HOW IS SOMEONE "BURIED" ??? --- LAID DOWN ???
Hmmm
Veritas Vincit !!!
"IN" Christ, KK
.....................................................
Consider, if you will, the fact that Phillip could have stayed on the edge of the water (on dry land) to sprinkle the Eunuch ... Why would Phillip take the Eunuch down into the water wetting both their garments if not to ensure that the Eunuch was "Baptized" [βαπτίζω - (baptizō - bap-tid'-zo)] properly making him "WHELMED"/"FULLY WET" with the water ???
It is a real stretch of the imagination to entertain the idea that Phillip would take the Eunuch down into the water and not take advantage of the most expedient means by which to "WHELM" him (make him "FULLY WET") by "DIPPING" him !!! ---
Is it your contention that Phillip just splashed or sprinkled the Eunuch until he had sufficiently “WHELMED†him with the water ??? … Hmmm ... ... it just doesn’t make any sense whatsoever !!!
The Greek definition of the word "BAPTIZED" speaks to the logical conclusion as to why they went down into the water !!! ... ... Why bother if not to "WHELM" him (making him "FULLY WET") by “DIPPING†him ???
Postscript: There are more Scriptures that speak to the issue of Baptism !!!
KK wrote:In the verses above -- Baptized - βαπτίζω (baptizō - bap-tid'-zo) - to make WHELMED (that is, FULLY WET); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism: - baptist, baptize, wash.*Please note -- βαπτίζω is from a derivative of the Greek word βάπτω (baptō - bap'-to) - A primary verb; to WHELM, that is, COVER WHOLLY WITH A FLUID; in the New Testament only in a qualified or specific sense, that is, (literally) to moisten (a part of one’s person), or (by implication) to stain (as with dye): - DIP.Verse 38 they went "down" both "into" the water !!!
But not everybody reads "your" Lexicon - "Your" way!!!
As for verses 38The Greek - εισ - holds the meaning = "to" or "into" - Thus what Philip and the Eunuch did is not proved to be immersion.
Even if the Eunuch did go "into" the water this does not prove that he was completely dunked. Philip could have just as easily applied effusion to baptise him at this point.
Consider the account of Philip and the eunuch !!!
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 baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
In the verses above -- Baptized - βαπτίζω (baptizō - bap-tid'-zo) - to make WHELMED (that is, FULLY WET); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism: - baptist, baptize, wash.
*Please note -- βαπτίζω is from a derivative of the Greek word βάπτω (baptō - bap'-to) - A primary verb; to WHELM, that is, COVER WHOLLY WITH A FLUID; in the New Testament only in a qualified or specific sense, that is, (literally) to moisten (a part of one’s person), or (by implication) to stain (as with dye): - DIP.
Verse 38 they went "down" both "into" the water !!!
KK
KK wrote:Merely pointing out what THE WORD SAYS !!!
What I was merely pointing out is that, nowhere in Scripture does it state that the depth of water in baptism, is of such a quantity as is required to cover the whole body as in immersion/submerging.
This is a denominational distinctive only!
Colossians 2: (K J V)11) In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:
12) BURIED with him (Christ) in BAPTISM, WHEREIN ALSO ye ARE RISEN with him (Christ) through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
Do you "SEE" and "UNDERSTAND" that Baptism is a SPIRITUAL CIRCUMCISION ???
TAKE HEED --- Col. 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
Romans 6: (K J V)3) Know ye not, that so many of us as were BAPTIZED into Jesus Christ were BAPTIZED into his death?
4) Therefore we ARE BURIED with him BY BAPTISM into death: that like as Christ was RAISED UP from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.
5) For if we have been PLANTED together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his RESURRECTION:
6) Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
Merely pointing out what THE WORD SAYS !!!
See Titus 3:5
KK wrote:The word "washing" in verse #5 is referring to Baptism with water by immersion, that is, the washing of the
It is simply a modern distinctive for the modern denomination of Baptist.
Look closely at Titus 3:5 ---
*Please note that "washing - λουτρόν" in verse #5 is from the Greek word λούω (louō - loo'-o) - A primary verb; to bathe (*THE WHOLE PERSON*); whereas νίπτω means to wet part only, [to cleanse (especially the hands or the feet or the face); ceremonially to perform ablution: - wash].
The word "washing" in verse #5 is referring to Baptism with water by immersion, that is, the washing of the entire person head to toe (completely wet) !!! ...
BURIED BY BAPTISM ???
John UK wrote:Somewhere along the line, a man of God has to make a decision on whether to baptise a confessed penitent or not. In my own case, after my conversion, I wanted to be baptised as soon as I realised it was important. Up till then I was telling people I was saved by God's grace, so what did I need baptism for.I was actually kept waiting for some months, and had to do a weekly course with the pastor, along with eleven other converts. We were taught all about the doctrines of grace (being a '1689 Baptist confessional' Free Evangelical Church) which included the doctrine of salvation and the purpose and meaning of baptism.Only when the elders of the church had interviewed all the candidates for baptism, and were happy with their testimonies of conversion, were we all baptised by total immersion, after giving a short testimony in church. It was a real glory day!
P Resby wrote:The assumption we can make from this statement of John UK, is that Baptists only baptise believers? Based on their verbal confession prior to getting all wet?
I was actually kept waiting for some months, and had to do a weekly course with the pastor, along with eleven other converts. We were taught all about the doctrines of grace (being a '1689 Baptist confessional' Free Evangelical Church) which included the doctrine of salvation and the purpose and meaning of baptism.
Only when the elders of the church had interviewed all the candidates for baptism, and were happy with their testimonies of conversion, were we all baptised by total immersion, after giving a short testimony in church. It was a real glory day!
John UK wrote:It does not surprise me that presby's get this subject wrong, as they have no understanding of the whole purpose of baptism. Whoever heard of baptising unbelievers?
Is this Arminian John - or naive John???
Your namesake taught;"We must at the same time beware of another evil, such as prevails among the Papists; for as they distinguish not as they ought between the thing and the sign, they stop at the outward element, and on that fix their hope of salvation. Therefore the sight of the water takes away their thoughts from the blood of Christ and the power of the Spirit." John Calvin.
Try to separate the sign from the actual sacrament, John.
No wonder the Reformed Baptists are much stronger in faith, doctrine, and witnessing power.
Believers' Baptism by immersion.
Mike wrote:The symbol is burial and resurrection. The dead body is buried, not sprinkled with dirt. Dunking is better.
"For instance, biological molecules behave differently in light and heavy water, and the freezing point for heavy water is 4° C, instead of H20’s 0° C. Those differences reveal that quantum effects rule in ordinary water, according to research carried out at X-ray Operations and Research beamline 11-ID-C at the Argonne Advanced Photon Source, combined with neutron data from Rutherford Appleton Laboratory in Didcot, England, and a computer simulation."
As you can plainly see dunkerings are a simulation of the vicissitudes of ecclesiastical norms in historic perspectives.And it is as simple as that.
Hudatos wrote:Biblically Baptism is the application of water.Anything else belongs to denominational distinctives in relation to the quantity of water applied.
Anything else belongs to denominational distinctives in relation to the quantity of water applied.
John UK wrote:Here for the benefit of all, is a most excellent and brief study on the subject. I have no reason to think he is wrong on any of the points made.
