I concur with drock on most of what he said regarding the definition of "baptism". I have read similar things about how that word got left in the King James. It is often funny to me how "sprinklers" will try to get around the fact that the greek word means to immerse and at the very least it can mean "to put into or cover", but this to would imply a complete covering or soaking with water. The presbyterian form is hardly that. In fact, you really can't tell that any water has been put on the person.
They will point to a few verses in the new testament that refer to "baptism" in a figurative sense in the Old Testament such as "the israelites were baptized in the Red Sea"( 1 cor 10:2) or "Noah was baptized in the flood"( 1 pet 3:20-21). They would say that the israelites and Noah in these verses weren't immersed, it in fact was the pagans (the egyptians and other inhabitants of earth) that were covered in water. From this they deduce that immersion in scripture was actually a symbol of judgement.
Besides this being exegetical hogwash it is also clear from didactic passages in scripture and from historical evidence alone that baptism was always by immersion. Jews were used to being baptized themselves. In fact most jews had baptismal pools in their houses. They used these to wash themselves ceremonially. If you will read Exodus 40 you will see that the priests were required to take baths before they could enter the tabernacle to make sacrifices. Also in John 2:24-27 the pharisees ask John why he was baptizing since he was neither Christ nor a prophet. This question alone reveals that the jews understood the symbolism of baptism and that is represented a cleansing and washing away of sins.
Finally, the most practical argument for immersion or complete covering would be that if you asked any sensible human being to was the dishes, they wouldn't just sprinkle them, they would soak them in water and possibly, oh my gosh, no they wouldn't..., yes, they would immerse them in a sink full of water. I don't want to eat off of dishes that have been baptized by a presbyterian!
Oh yeah, i might take one exception to what drock said. Although he might have been using a little sarcasm. I do think baptism is slightly more than a mere suggestion. It is an act of obedience. I am sure you would agree drock. No, it is definitely not required (e.g. thief on the cross) for salvation. But, when the jews asked Peter what they were to do in response to his first sermon in acts, he told them to Repemt and be Baptized (acts 2). Baptism is also the first thing Paul did once ananias healed him. So, baptism like good works is extremely important and obedience to any of God's commands certainly pleases our father and as we do them we store up treasures in Heaven.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Sorry about the confusion on my answer to nate. Yes, the first part of my response was totally sarcastic. I guess that is ambiguous on the computer. Nate said that his pastor was saying baptism by immersion must not be the only correct way because old people may not be able to be baptized by immersion. I was criticizing using an exception to a rule to make a rule. The thief on the cross was the exception to the rule, not the rule itself. Baptism is important and is a matter of obedience. In fact, refusal to be baptized is a sin to be taken seriously like other sins in the church, and is a matter of church discipline. Just because a particular situation may call for an exception does not mean we throw out the rule. That was my point. Baptism is by immersion and is to be performed after a confession of faith as a public profession (whether or not you "walked an aisle," which is not required as the public profession).
I thought you were being sarcastic drock. it was just hard to tell.
Post a Comment