What is a Baptist

MUST believe in the core essentials of the faith ALL Christians would agree on...

Bible as the inspired/infallible Word of God, ONLY divine source of revelation today
The Cross of Christ is the propiationary atonement for sins
Only way to be saved ios by grace alone, faith alone in the person/work of jesus Christ
God is a truine being, father/Son/Holy Spirit
Second Coming of Jeus
Physical resurrction of the Boy
heaven/hell for all eternity

We than blend in the "baptit distinctives" like believers baptism only, local church government/autonomy
autonomy of each baptist to believe based upon conviction
some having creeds

Think we are Christians first, who happen to adopt and practice baptist distinctives!

 

Ruiz, what is the title of this "peer reviewed" dissertation you are referencing?

You say this Dr. Lee "does give some [Anabaptists] who rejected their heresies some respect."

I went on this Dr. Lee's site and read:

Are these the baptists whom you are referencing?

 

In linguistics a loan word is "a word imported by borrowing from another language" (Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, p. 230). It actually becomes a word in the target language to the exact extent that the hearer attaches a meaning to the word without knowing the original language. So the word "baptize" is an English word, with an etymology (word origin) of a Greek word. When you say the word "baptize" to the average person on the street, they know what it means even without knowing the etymology. However, if you say the Greek word baptizo they will not know what you are talking about. Thus, when you see the word "baptize" in a English Bible, it has been translated.

 

So, 76 times baptize simply means getting wet with water? That's all there is to it?

I know better, the average person on the street doesn't.

 

This might help you. There is something in linguistics called relevance theory. I explained it here: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=63008

When I hear the word "baptism" in English I immediately think of immersion. However, depending on the immediate social context of the listener, he or she may think of a baby being sprinkled or a ceremony which is a means of salvation. It is polysemous (having more than one meaning). However you understand it, baptism is an English word.

This multiple understanding by the hearer is the reason that in English we have to teach people what it means Biblically. In the Japanese NT I'm working on we've used a technical term with Chinese characters, then used the loan word in "ruby" pronunciation marks. Hopefully this will communicate what we want.

 

1.) Baptism(full immersion) for membership into the local church(doesn't add one cubit to salvation, either).
2.) Observing communion of the Lord's body and blood.
3.) Observing feet washing as part of communion(this is my belief, and know that not all will agree with me, but it is to me).
4.) Preaching that repentence, justification, santicfication, GRACE,and faith are are a part of salvation.

 

John, I will always bow to your linguistic skills, but I have a couple of questions.

I was always taught that the KJV "baptize" was transliterated, rather than translated. Had the KJV scholars translated, it would have been rendered "plunge" or "dip," or "immerse." Is transliterated the proper word?

Second, the Greek "rantizo" is translated "sprinkle." I found it in Hebrews 10:22, but it doesn't refer to baptism there. I've never heard of it being rendered "rantize."

Could this reflect the biases of the KJV scholars?

 

Baptize was an English word long before there was an English Bible.

The Book of Common Prayer in use in 1611 employed the word dip in describing what baptism entailed.

It was the Westminster Reformed partisans in 1645 who dumped the word dip from the baptismal service description, substituting the word sprinkle in their "Directory for Public Worship".

 

Baptize is not a transliteration. Transliteration is reproducing the exact spelling of a word via a different alphabet.

 

Yep, and that is what they did with the word baptidzo and its many variations.

 

Hank, I dont consider that a good trait. Im a fairly new Christian but Im shocked to hear some of the very egregious things I hear on this board. I can just imagine what some of the lurkers (who are undisided on which way to turn) think after reading some of these threads) I'm positive we, by our constant bickering & disagreement, have done more harm to the "Cause for Christianity" than we have done good.

 

Thats Southern....full of sugar & Cholesterol....& whats a nanner:laugh:

 

Yes, it's a problem. On the other hand it shows that we are all human.

HankD

 

Yes, the word was originally transliterated, though it afterward became an English loan word. Whether or not the KJV translators were the first to transliterate it into English is another question, one that would take some research taking more time than I have free right now. Interestingly enough, Jerome (the 4th century one, not the one on our thread right now) transliterated baptizo when he translated the Latin Vulgate, so that might be the original source for all later transliterations, even in English, since all the early English translators consulted the Vulgate.

Yes, I think it does. I think they could have easily literally translated instead of using the transliteration, but they didn't. Of course it would have been political suicide, maybe even worse, if they had literally translated.

 

Thanks, John. Your information about Jerome and the Vulgate added to my body of knowledge. I don't remember ever knowing about Jerome's rendering of baptizo.

 

baptizo is still used in modern Greece. Often connected to the laundry industry......Sprinkling would hardly work in dry cleaning; the clothes must be "immersed".

Cheers,

Jim

 

The true southerners I hung out with always called 'banana pudding' 'nanner puddin'".

Somehow I think you already knew that- LOL!

 

Another thing that sets Baptists apart from anyone else: That laymen may administer baptism and communion.