Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | baptism by emersion only? | Matt 3:16 | DocTrinsograce | 192814 | ||
Hi, Progolue... Welcome to the forum! You'll find that the search feature (in the upper right hand corner) is very handy when it comes to seeing what others have said on any given topic. This one has been discussed very frequently! Immersion is implied in the root Greek word baptidzo. We also see it pretty clearly implied in Matthew 3:15 and Mark 1:10. Both passages speak of Jesus coming up out of the water as the conclusion of His baptism by John. In Him, Doc |
||||||
2 | baptism by emersion only? | Matt 3:16 | hopalong | 192892 | ||
Hi Doc, Jesus coming up out of the water does not neccesarily mean that He had been under the water. Your conclusion steikes me as bein based on a presupposition rather than the texts themselves. Brother Hopalong |
||||||
3 | baptism by emersion only? | Matt 3:16 | DocTrinsograce | 192902 | ||
Dear Brother Hopalong, You're right, I tried to emphasize that it was implied, but I should have done a better job of qualifying my answer. Credobaptism is, indeed, a presupposition, but a considered one. (A lot of the traditional doctrines of the Church were re-scrutinized coming out of the Reformation.) We Baptists also tend to be a bit less strictly Covenantal in our hermeneutics. Consequently we don't quite agree with the perspective of baptism as an expression of the New Covenant equivalent in nature to circumcision in the Old Covenant. We deem that that particular Coventental sign was once external (Ephesians 2:11), but is now internal (Romans 2:29; Colossians 2:11). By the way, being a fan of Cornelius Van Till -- although still only a student -- I'm not greatly ashamed of my presuppositions. Didn't another Westminster Theological Seminary scholar, John Frame, call them "basic heart commitments?" :-) I've spent a lot of time working through the Biblical basis of the presuppositions I now hold. I keep working at it, but I'm pretty happy with them. Yet I don't deem this particular question to be a point at which fellowship should be broken. In accordance with my conscience, I worship with like-minded believers. However, I love my Presbyterian, Dutch Reformed, Lutheran, and other paedobaptistic (and monergistic) brethren. In Him, Doc |
||||||
4 | baptism by emersion only? | Matt 3:16 | hopalong | 192903 | ||
Hi Doc, I simply was,in my own poor way, attempting to show that neither position falls short of Biblical justification. To some, sprinkling and infant baptism borders on heresy. I hope my posts will disuade them from such an extreme opinion. In Him, Hoppy and Family |
||||||
5 | baptism by emersion only? | Matt 3:16 | DocTrinsograce | 192904 | ||
Hi, Hoppy... I understood what you were saying. I hope my response was appropriate. Actually I heard one notion of sprinkling recently that sought to liken it to sprinkling the congregation of Israel with the blood of the peace offerings in Exodus 24:8. That's an interesting analogy, but I didn't find it persuasive. I don't think a paedobaptist would want to build to much on an argument like that either. In Him, Doc |
||||||
6 | baptism by emersion only? | Matt 3:16 | hopalong | 192905 | ||
No Doc, I certainly would shy away from a doctrine built on a single vese :-) UH OH! THE LITTLE WOMAN HAS A CHORE FOR ME! ,Later Doc Hoppy |
||||||