Will this necessitate, either in your own view or in the view of your church, that you leave the Baptist tradition?
Craig
Well, it means that I will never be an elder in the church! Beyond that, I don't know. The elders are aware of my position. Surely I could not teach this view, but if I stick to areas of agreement I think I will be allowed to continue teaching.
I'm not sure if mode of baptism is isomorphic to what matter is used as an element in the eucharist.
It seems that would be more like asking whether we can baptize with liquid detergent or sand.
Mode of baptism is perhaps more like whether we use a common cup or individual ones.
Still, the general question of making biblical example normative, taken in isolation from biblical theology, is a valid one. Maybe that's what you were getting at.
I think he was. And for polemical uses, they are equivalent. Submersionists will say "Look! It was always submersion!" Well, all you have to say is "Look! It was always wine!" to shut them up.
Also, in the first four centuries, it wasn't uncommon to catechize before baptism.
Garver, Yes that is what I was getting at-- by pointing out the isomorphism (similar structure) of the two questions. I did not write that "mode of baptism" was isomorphic to "which element", but rather that the two questions, as posed, were isomorphic. Not that anyone does or should care about the technicality.
Well, doesn't it depend whether you include isomorphism of all the sub-structural elements along with overall structure in your criteria for properly individuating isomorphisms?
Just joking. 
I read somewhere a little while ago that baptizo refers not as much to the action of dipping as it does to the result of that dipping. So when something was "baptizoed" it would emerge looking different - it was transformed. This would seem to fit well into your argument that it does not necessarily refer to the mode.
Tim,
Do you remember where you read that? It seems I've heard this, as well, though I can't remember the source.
Thanks,
Craig
I would be interested in some references to the "documents from the early church" that you note in the closing paragraphs...
Craig (Oz) and Josh,
I am talking about the 1st century. By no later than the third century, a trend to extensive pre-baptismal preparation was evident.
One obvious source, The Didache, says nothing about a catechism, but only that the person being baptized should fast. This is indirect evidence.
I will look for other sources for the claim (early church documents do not teach of extensive pre-baptism preparation for adult converts). I have been taught that from days of yore so, I repeated it without any references at my fingertips. It was repeated in several sources I have been studying, but in looking at those sources (one from Sproul) it only mentions early church "extra-biblical sources." So I have been caught with my pants down for the moment. I will continue to hunt, and if anyone is inclined to help me out it would be appreciated.
In the apostolic era itself, those who favor extended pre-baptismal instruction have to argue that the eunuch did receive such instruction, that Peter’s "many other words" constituted such instruction, or that the 3000 were not necessarily baptized that day (the "souls added" phrases indicating some sort of eschatological statement) or that the practice of rapid baptism ended (though scripture is silent on the matter) when the last apostle died.
David,
You say that "the only passage where one might argue for immersion is the cleansing of Naaman." This is false:
Lev 4:17: the priest shall immerse his *finger*. The sprinkling comes after his finger had been immersed
Ruth 2:14: The *bread* was immersed in the vinegar.
Josh 3:15: The priests *feet* were immersed.
1 Sam 14:27: The *end of the staff* was immersed in the honeycomb.
My only point here is to demonstrate that it is not a wild and crazy idea to argue for immersion from those LXX passages.
Also, to pick up on your early comment that baptism by immersion (hmmm, that's redundant, hmmm, that's redundant) is "fine" and even "preferred"...I would simply say that the picture of the death and resurrection that we share with Christ by faith is totally lost if the mode of baptism is not immersion.
Regarding early (non-inspired) documents, I would point to the Didache, arguably one of the earliest writings in our possession (some argue that it dates from the late first century).
What that document has to say on baptism is short and to the point, so I'll just quote it in its entirety:
Chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.
Seems very clear that these early Christians, presumably taught by the apostles themselves, saw as valid various modes of baptism.
Submerging someone under the water is a very poor picture of death and resurrection. Couldn't you just put them in a coffin and have them spring out? After all, if the important thing is the symbolism...
Josh,
You will have to decide for yourself whether you think the symbolism is important. The bigger question is does scripture intend baptism to be a picture of death and resurrection. Not to say that the symbolism is the sole intention, but is it an intention at all?
-Curt
See the baptism info in the comments of infant baptism on 17 Feb 04. Josh likes the length of the comments (I surpassed the limit and had to break it up over separate comments).
Baptism is not merely about being immersed, making a commitment, or joining a particular denomination or church. None of these things convey the real meaning of baptism. Baptism is about publicly identifying with Christ. It is an act of obedience. Baptism is an outward expression of an inward decision to align oneself with Christ and what He lived and died for.
If you were sprinkled as a child or christened, you have not been scripturally baptized. If you were immersed as an adult but had no intention of following Christ, you were not scripturally baptized. If you were sprinkled and have followed Christ since that time, you have not been scripturally baptized. If you were immersed and became a Christian later, you have not been scripturally baptized. Does that mean that Christ does not accept you or loves you less? Absolutely not. Does it mean that you are not saved if you haven't been baptized? No. It means that as a believer, you need to be obedient and be scripturally baptized.
> "Man. I guess am now a Reformed, partial-preterist postmillennialist sprinkling-is-OK paedobaptist teaching adult Sunday school in a Baptist church. Is this a great country or what?"
What's even greater is that I took a much different route to get to the same place in the road.
Hehe. Cheers to all us Reformed types getting together. cf. John Frame's book Evangelical Reunion. What if we could merge all quasi-reformed denominations into one--wouldn't that be great?
Will this necessitate, either in your own view or in the view of your church, that you leave the Baptist tradition?
Well, it means that I will never be an elder in the church! Beyond that, I don't know. The elders are aware of my position. Surely I could not teach this view, but if I stick to areas of agreement I think I will be allowed to continue teaching.
David,
Three comments on this, from my own experience. First, different views on baptism tend to reflect different views on the fundamental "structure" of Christianity, of the gospel, of salvation. In the end, that is likely to work its way through even in what you currently consider "areas of disagreement", so that you find yourself increasingly out-of-step with the rest of your church.
Second, should you have children in the future, the issues will be greatly sharpened for you. There is a big difference between seeing your church as one that denies infant baptism, to seeing it as one that denies infants baptism - that withholds baptism and its blessings from children, and especially your children. This is a very live issue for me at the moment.
Thirdly, don't assume you've reached the end of the journey in terms of your views on baptism. After years of trying to make the Reformed view on baptism come together - and finding that Reformed explanations make sense as I read them, but then dissolve into mist shortly thereafter - I've been convinced (by dint of going back to Scripture and looking at what it actually says on the subject) that the Lutheran view captures most fully the biblical position - in particular, the fact that baptism does not merely symbolise or confirm an existing state of affairs (whether confession of faith or membership in the covenant), but that it actually confers the blessings of the gospel (received by faith).
David, why is a denominational merger necessary? Church fellowship is fellowship of ministry and sacrament, and I don't recall any Reformed denominations professing that their bureaucracy is a sacrament. If two denominations are in altar & pulpit fellowship, they're in full fellowship. Having the same committees allocate funds for seminaries is a triviality that has nothing to do with church union.
I prefer immersion, but I like the Didache text because it inserts common sense and practicality back into the discussion. For instance, how would one get baptized in the desert when there is no nearby oasis? I truly believe that the commands and ordinances of God will never be supplanted by the inability to obey them. Hypothetical: if you were faced with an enthusiastic convert that wanted to be baptized right away (as with Phillip and the eunich) and all you had was a canteen, would you not dump it over his head without reservation?
As far as symbolism is concerned, total immersion is a good picture of death/resurrection, but pouring water over one's head still carries images of cleansing. I don't think it suffers either way.
Commenting by HaloScan
