[MENTION=334]atpollard[/MENTION]
[MENTION=394]MennoSota[/MENTION]
Why do you keep mentioning me by name and then posting what has nothing to do with anything that I have posted?
Bottom Line...
The ENTIRETY of this DOGMA invented (out of thin air) by the Anabpatists in the late 16th Century, directly ccontradicting nearly 1600 years of Christianity, is that baptism MANDATES the full, complete immersion of the person entirely under water - anything other (dipping, etc.) is dogmatically prohibited and heretical and makes for an invalid act.
I am still not a 16th Century anything and Particular Baptists do not derive their origin or theology from Anabaptist roots. We are an offshoot of the Anglican and Reformed movements.
Obedience to the commands of John the Baptist, Jesus Christ and the Apostolic commands given in scripture as interpreted by Reformed Baptist theologians is not honestly described as “out of thin air”, so your statement of my beliefs is both false and deliberately falsely derogatory.
The ENTIRE apologetic is that the word "baptize" expressly MEANS and MANDATES this immersion of every cell under water; it's what the Greek word literally, undeniably MEANS and MANDATES, so everything otherwise is prohibited, heretical, wrong and invalid.
Again, incorrect. PART of the apologetic is that the literal meaning of the Greek word ‘baptizo’, which is the word used in scripture to describe what was done to new believers for repentance, is immerse and that immersion in running water is the preferred method of baptism and the method examples in scripture. Even the Didache says the same thing, reserving ‘immersion in other water’ for cases where ‘living water’ is unavailable and ‘pouring’ for those rare cases where NEITHER ‘living water’ nor ‘other water’ is available. You saw the Eastern Orthodox baptism, even if they baptized infants and did not fully immerse, yet those who spoke Greek knew the difference between a command to immerse in ‘other water’ and the pouring of water. Furthermore, if that basin was fed by a spring or a stream, then it WAS ‘living water’.
I have doubts that John the Baptist twirled the adult Jesus around like that at His baptism, but my only real disagreement with the EOC baptism presented from a scriptural perspective comes from the “Credo” rather than the “baptism”. They immersed in living water (or other water) as commanded by the meaning of “baptizo”.
Thing is: No one who speaks Greek seems to know that. NO ONE - not one Christian on the planet Earth - for over 1500 years - knew that. Until a German speaking Anabaptist in the late 16th Century, he stated this - to the shock of every Greek speaking person. The author and readers of the Didache (around 90 AD) didn't know that.... many who wrote in the early church (people who knew koine Greek, spoke koine Greek, wrote in koine Greek to readers who knew koine Greek) not one of them knew that. The Greek Orthodox Church doesn't know that. It has NEVER, EVER had a dogma of IMMERSION ONLY and have never practiced that. Why is it, not one member of the Greek Orthodox Church.... in nearly 2000 years.... has ever known what this German speaking Anabaptist knew in the late 16th Century - that in Greek, the VERY WORD means and dogmatically mandates that every cell of a human be covered by water - and everything else is prohibited, heretical, invalid?
I have never said “PROHIBITED”. As stated above, the word ‘baptizo’ means ‘immerse’ not pour and immersion is the PREFERRED method as clearly stated in the Didache.
I have never said “HERETICAL”. I even went to some lengths to discuss Heretical, Heterodox and Orthodox as it applies to this issue, but your response shows that you ignored everything that I said and dragged me back with a “mention” for a second helping of false accusation and lies.
I never said “INVALID”. It is not for men to proclaim what God will or will not accept, except to offer the words that God himself has spoken on an issue. So another false accusation made towards me, a non 16th Century person and a non-Anabaptist.
'Now, please don't change the subject. The Issue is not: Immersion is Preferred. The DOGMA is "Immersion ONLY is permitted and valid." ALL baptisms for nearly 1600 years before this Ansbaptists were forbidden and invalid, and most since are forbidden and invalid. And it's DOGMA. Actually one of the foundational and defining DOGMAS of Baptists. As I noted (and we all agree), IF the subject was "Was immersion the preferred mode of administration in the Early Church?" We'd all be in agreement. If the issue were even, "Are there solid reasons to prefer this mode?" there would be little disagreement (I'd quote Luther on this, he definitely prefers it - although he meant "dip" and not "immersion every cell"). Every church and denomination has the authority to form and even require certain practices within it; no one denies or questions that. The issue is the DOGMA. The issue is the MANDATE/PROHIBITION. The issue is the dogmatic proclaimation that 100% of baptisms before that Anabaptist learned what the word means were invalid.... and most today still are. We are NOT talking "preferred mode in my church" we're talking DOGMA/HERESY.
YOU have steadfastly maintained that the issue is about “ONLY PERMITTED and INALID and HERETICAL” and have steadfastly claimed that as a Reformed Baptist (aka Particular Baptist) that my position is the same as the 16th Century Anabaptist that claim all of the “ONLY PERMITTED and INALID and HERETICAL” accusations that you rant against.
I have steadfastly maintained that as a Reformed Baptist (aka Particular Baptist), that I have ALWAYS argued that Immersion is Preferred (because it is commanded where possible with alternatives permitted where immersion in living water is impractical) and that the actual word “baptizo” in Greek means to immerse. So neither of us is changing the subject. This is what I have been disagreeing with you over concerning the mode of baptism since the beginning. As a Credobaptist, as all Reformed/Particular Baptists are, I have strong objections to the baptizing of those that have not professed belief (as Romans 10 instructs) or Repented (as Acts 2 instructs), but that has NOTHING to do with immersion vs pouring or sprinkling as the mode of baptism.
Also keep in mind: NO ONE is telling Baptists that you are prohibited to use a mode of complete submersion... that that's heretical and forbidden and invalid. This proclamation of dogma/heresy, this proclamation of "invalid" is entirely one-sided.
I do keep that I’m mind. That is why I just tell you what Scripture says (which is that they were immersed ... “baptizo”) and what scripture never says (like “bapto” = a quick dip, or pour or sprinkle). Furthermore, when you incorrectly point to something like the Didache and claim that those who read First Century Greek never knew that that “baptizo” means immerse, I point your attention to what you yourself quoted beyond just the word “pour” where they lay out a hierarchy of preferred modes of baptism with immersion in moving water (as John the Baptist demonstrated) at the top of that list.
That DOES make immersion in moving water the preferred method of baptism. It is you and not I that brings up terms like FORBIDDEN and HERETICAL and INVALID with respect to mode of Baptism. I make no such claims and cannot understand why I keep getting mentions.
- Arthur
