Infant baptism is a huge error!

[farouk]

Since you've used the term "dip" I assume you're taking about immersion rather than sprinkling of water. I've not mentioned anything about either.

You certainly aren't implying that the term "dip" has something to do with whether or not believer's baptism or infant baptism is correct, are you?

And, your certainly wrong if you think I don't attribute any importance to baptism.

 

[tohelp]

Mark
Do you see child baptism or sprinkling baptism in the scripture?

 

[Mike S]

Mark
Do you see child baptism or sprinkling baptism in the scripture?

No, but I don't see any writings in scripture defining the forms of baptism either. We see examples, but we don't see defining rules. Many early church fathers clearly believed in infant baptism, and advocated for it, and it has always been partly about admission into the Christian church, partly about a confession of faith, and always about God's grace.

For me, the importance of baptism is not in the details of how or when it's performed, it's in the fact that it is God grace in action.

 

[Nick]

Re: Infantile baptism is a huge error!

Yes - the preacher is right - and I totally agree with him. You can't baptise a baby. What does the baby know? Nothing!!! You baptise a person who is of age, a person who 'understands' and 'believes'. Believes what? The verse above.

The Anglican church in Sydney - of which I am a member - does not view infant baptism as a means of salvation, nor does it use it as an expression of the child's faith. For us, it is to show the parents', the God parents' and the congregation's support in raising the child up in a Christ-like manner, with the view that one day hopefully the child will be able to follow Christ and get baptized as a consenting adult. In all the baptism ceremonies I've been in, it's all about those who raise the baby, and their commitment to Christ, not the baby.

 

[tohelp]

No, but I don't see any writings in scripture defining the forms of baptism either. We see examples, but we don't see defining rules. Many early church fathers clearly believed in infant baptism, and advocated for it, and it has always been partly about admission into the Christian church, partly about a confession of faith, and always about God's grace.

For me, the importance of baptism is not in the details of how or when it's performed, it's in the fact that it is God grace in action.

The Greek word used there is baptisma which means immersion. Baptism means immersion.

 

[Mike S]

The Greek word used there is baptisma which means immersion. Baptism means immersion.

I think it also means dipping, or washing, which can be partial or total immersion, as well as Jewish ritual washing that involved the use of water in sprinkiling or pouring.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I think it also means dipping, or washing, which can be partial or total immersion, as well as Jewish ritual washing that involved the use of water in sprinkiling or pouring.

The Greek baptisma, translated "baptism" in the NASB and ESV as well as most other bible versions, can mean only immersion, or submersion.

 

[farouk]

The Greek baptisma, translated "baptism" in the NASB and ESV as well as most other bible versions, can mean only immersion, or submersion.

Buried with Him in baptism, symbolically, makes no sense if the idea of burying were to sprinkle with a few grains of earth. It means dip, immerse.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Buried with Him in baptism, symbolically, makes no sense if the idea of burying were to sprinkle with a few grains of earth. It means dip, immerse.

 

[farouk]

the: the Scriptural symbolism of burial, etc. seems to make less sense, otherwise.

 

[Mike S]

The Greek baptisma, translated "baptism" in the NASB and ESV as well as most other bible versions, can mean only immersion, or submersion.

If you want to believe there's only one way to understand the proper mode of baptism, then go for it. I think the whole issue is nonsense in the same way as was the Pharisees' obsession with every extrapolated nuance of the law; it's misses the point. The point is that in Christ, we are baptised in the spirit, and there is nothing magical in the water, whether it's sprinkled or poured or used for immersion.

I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:


I'm not trying to convince anyone their understanding of baptism is wrong, please show the rest of us the same respect.




http://bible.org/article/what-primary-meaning-baptism-some-translational-difficulties

A majority of translations, in both English and foreign version, prefer to transliterate the word “baptism,” or to translate it as “immersion” or “plunge.” A number of Greek lexicons give “dipping” or “immersion” as the primary meaning. In exceptional cases where the word takes on metaphorical significance, these lexicons explain “baptism” by various means – identification, union, etc. James W. Dale's work on Baptism, Classic Baptism, Johannic Baptism,and Judaic Baptism, suggested the following as a definition: “…whatever is capable of thoroughly changing the character, state, or condition of any object, is capable of baptizing that object: and by such change of character, state, or condition does, in fact, baptize it.”<SUP>1</SUP> He argued that the primary meaning of the word is not the mode applied, whether “immersion, pouring, or sprinkling.” His approach examined the exceptional uses and reminds us of the grammarian's proverb: “The exception proves the rule.” Dale attempted to find a definition that would include all cases of the use of the word. If one were to accept his definition, or any other, there still remains the question of how to translate “baptism.”

The entire discussion reminds us of the difficulties of translating some words from a source to a target language into anything other than a transliteration, since a single “calque”<SUP>2</SUP> or linguistic copy often remains elusive for translating certain specialized words into meaningful and under-standable language. An alternative recourse would involve using an equivalent expression, a paraphrastic approach, or to apply several different expressions depending on the context. Unfortunately, this final solution obscures for the reader that the underlying Greek word is baptisma or baptismos.

The modes of immersion, pouring, and sprinkling depict various aspects of Christian baptism. It is perhaps unfair to say that one of them does a better job than another.

Immersionists, for example, argue that their mode of water baptism best illustrates the core ingredients of the Good News—Jesus died, was buried, and rose again for our sins. On closer examination, however, the historic account tells us that Jesus died, then was buried and rose again. When a believer submits to the waters of baptism, the chronology is slightly changed, for the believer is symbolically buried in the waters, simultaneously dies with Christ, and then is raised again. Being buried in the waters does not picture so much Christ’s action for us, as it does the believer’s union with Christ in His death, burial and resurrection.

Transliterations are only one piece of the puzzle that challenge Bible translators. Cultural and historical expectations from Bible readers challenge the goal of providing Scriptures in meaningful communication.

A final consideration should also be addressed. Literal translations claim to be better study Bibles because they have correspondences to the original biblical languages that are more easily mapped and traced. When a version uses several different words or expressions to translate one given Greek word, this is said to complicate the matter. One asks: “How are we to know when and where ‘baptism’ occurs, if you do not use the original word?” This is a legitimate concern, but it unfortunately obscures the issue that some words possess a wide and varied meaning that cannot be represented by a single word or expression. In all of this, the Bible translator is remains challenged to render accurately the word of God from one language to another.

 

[farouk]

mark: 'respect': if you think it's disrespect merely to point out the meaning of baptism as being 'to dip', and that it symbolizes burial, as the Scriptures say, well, I don't know what to say.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

If you want to believe there's only one way to understand the proper mode of baptism, then go for it. I think the whole issue is nonsense in the same way as was the Pharisees' obsession with every extrapolated nuiance of the law; it's misses the point. The point is that in Christ, we are baptised in the spirit, and there is nothing magical in the water, whether it's sprinkled or poured or used for immersion.

You're quite right. There is nothing magical about the water. It is a public testimony, nothing more. Which is a more solid testimony, the immersion along with the words ...

Romans 6 NASB
4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.
​

... or to be sprinkled with a few drops of water that do not depict Jesus' own baptism, or the image that Paul painted with his words? It doesn't make any difference spiritually. It makes a tremendous difference testimonially.

 

[Guest]

http://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-Mark-16-16.html

 

[Mike S]

mark: 'respect': if you think it's disrespect merely to point out the meaning of baptism as being 'to dip', and that it symbolizes burial, as the Scriptures say, well, I don't know what to say.

Maybe I shouldn't have used that comment, most of the posts here have been respectful.

I'm convinced, though you seem not to be, that baptism, as translated from Greek useage, can mean more than "dip." It has also been used to mean "wash." I don't understand the insistence that it means only thing. We can't even be sure that's the case with most words in our own language.

Yes, baptism symbolizes death to an old life, burial, and rebirth into a new life. It has always also meant admission into the Christian community.

 

[farouk]

Maybe I shouldn't have used that comment, most of the posts here have been respectful.

I'm convinced, though you seem not to be, that baptism, as translated from Greek useage, can mean more than "dip." It has also been used to mean "wash." I don't understand the insistence that it means only thing. We can't even be sure that's the case with most words in our own language.

Yes, baptism symbolizes death to an old life, burial, and rebirth into a new life. It has always also meant admission into the Christian community.

mark:

Okay, friend.

Dispassionately, I would comment that while baptism bears relation to visible identification firstly with the risen Christ and then with others who bear His name in testimony, I don't see it as initiating spiritual life in any sense at all; this occurs at the new birth, when the new believer is brought into the church; like the other ordinance, the Lord's Supper, baptism is an outward symbol of truth of which the participant is already and essentially in vital enjoyment.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I'm convinced, though you seem not to be, that baptism, as translated from Greek useage, can mean more than "dip." It has also been used to mean "wash." I don't understand the insistence that it means only thing. We can't even be sure that's the case with most words in our own language.

Biblical Greek is translated contextually as well as definitively. The context of baptizo and baptisma can never be found in the Bible to refer to anything other than immersion. The Strong's definition ...

http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=908
​

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Geneva]

1. immersion, submersion
   1. of calamities and afflictions with which one is quite overwhelmed
   2. of John's baptism, that purification rite by which men on confessing their sins were bound to spiritual reformation, obtained the pardon of their past sins and became qualified for the benefits of the Messiah's kingdom soon to be set up. This was valid Christian baptism, as this was the only baptism the apostles received and it is not recorded anywhere that they were ever rebaptised after Pentecost.
   3. of Christian baptism; a rite of immersion in water as commanded by Christ, by which one after confessing his sins and professing his faith in Christ, having been born again by the Holy Spirit unto a new life, identifies publicly with the fellowship of Christ and the church.

In Rom. 6:3 Paul states we are "baptized unto death" meaning that we are not only dead to our former ways, but they are buried. To return to them is as unthinkable for a Christian as for one to dig up a dead corpse! In Muslim countries a new believer has little trouble with Muslims until he is publicly baptized. It is then, that the Muslims know he means business, and then the persecution starts.[/FONT]
​

Yes, baptism symbolizes death to an old life, burial, and rebirth into a new life. It has always also meant admission into the Christian community.

I would not say the latter by any means, though I suppose the public testimony of faith represented in baptism could mean that to some, if they so choose to accept it as meaning that. It is, though, not an admission into a club, but a testimony of what Christ has done in the life of the one baptized.

 

[Mike S]

OK, I think I've said all I need to say, and I think I understand the views of others. I'll leave it on that note, agreeing to value each other as brothers and sisters in Christ, and know we're all working out our own salvation as best we can.

Blessings to all.

 

[mpchristian]

While it seems the discussion of this topic has ended, I have a question to which I would appreciate everyone's opinion. I grew up in a church that practiced infant baptism. At middle school age, I went through "confirmation" which served as an outward profession of my faith that Jesus Christ was my lord and savior. This involved classes to orient us with what it meant to be a Christian, and in the end involved a ceremony in which we stood in front of our large church congregation and stated that we believed in Jesus Christ as our lord and savior.

Now, I am nearly 30 years old, and I am involved in a baptist church which believes in baptism by immersion. At this point in my life, I have decided that when I have children, they will be baptized by immersion as this is how they do it in the baptist church. It was suggested at one point that I should be baptized by immersion as I was only baptized as an infant. However, it seems to me that baptism is also an outward profession of one's faith in Jesus Christ. I have already experienced and shown this at another church.

I have been involved in this church for several years now. It just doesn't seem like it would make sense for me to get baptized by immersion at this point in my life as I have been a follower of Jesus for over 15 years now and decently involved at this church for several years now. I'm interested to hear every ones' input on this issue?

Thanks

 

[mpchristian]

I was baptized as an infant. When I accepted Christ in the Methodist church, I went through confirmation, which involved professing this in front of the church congregation. In other words I accepted Christ and let the whole church know about it at this time, the same thing that would have been done had I been baptized in front of the church congregation.