Aspersion, Affusion & Immersion. All acceptable?

[rsr]

Understood, Robert. The grammar police are having some well-deserved doughnuts.

 

[robycop3]

I believe it's IMMERSION when at all possible. Occasionally it's simply impossible, but GOD knows the story there.

In Scripture, all who were baptized were immersed, but Jesus gave us the example of the repentant thief on the cross whom He saved, despite the impossibility of his being baptized.

 

[Yeshua1]

A few things here...

First, there is no definitive proof that family baptism was ever practiced in the New Testament without a credible profession of faith. However, we do see family conversions in the New Testament.

Acts 16:31-34 31 They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” 32 And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. 33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. 34 And he brought them into his house and set food before them, and rejoiced greatly, having believed in God with his whole household. (emphasis mine)

Our paedobaptist friends like to make the case for family baptism, ending at verse 33. However, verse 34 makes it clear that baptism was preceded by belief (faith). The phrase "whole household" would apply to all those able to be outwardly called by the Word. Infants are not able to be outwardly called, so they would be excluded in this instance.

The passages you cited in Hebrews are speaking about the difference between the Old and New Covenants and the mediatorial role of Jesus Christ. The reference to sprinkling in verse 13 is in the context of Old Covenant ceremony. It is compared to the better sacrifice of Christ. The author of Hebrews presents the ceremony of the Old Covenant when speaking about Moses:

Hebrews9:18-22 18 Therefore even the first covenant was not inaugurated without blood. 19 For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “THIS IS THE BLOOD OF THE COVENANT WHICH GOD COMMANDED YOU.” 21 And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. 22 And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.

But once again, a comparison is made to the better sacrifice of Christ:

Hebrews 9:23 23 Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.

In short, one needs to fight to find even an oblique reference to family baptisms or another mode other than immersion.

Immersion of the already saved person is the Biblical model given to us in the NT, but not use that to divide from Christians such as Reformed who disagree!

 

[Jerome]

Immersion of the already saved person is the Biblical model given to us in the NT, but not use that to divide from Christians such as Reformed who disagree!

What in the world? Where do you come up with this stuff?
Since when do Reformed disagree that the Biblical model was immersion?
Calvin himself declared it was immersion!

Calvin's Commentary on John 3:22-23 :

"John and Christ administered baptism by plunging the whole body beneath the water"

[vv. 22-23 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.]

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Jerome, every Reformed denomination I know of save the Reformed Baptists anoint or pour. They are also pedo-baptists, not credo-baptists.

What in the world? Where do you come up with this stuff?
Since when do Reformed disagree about what the Biblical model was?
Calvin declared it was immersion!

Calvin's Commentary on John 3:22-23 :

"John and Christ administered baptism by plunging the whole body beneath the water"

[vv. 22-23 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.]

 

[Jerome]

Yes, sad isn't it that the Reformed will admit the Biblical model was immersion and proceed to do otherwise.

 

[TCassidy]

This thread reminds me of a short debate between a liberal loon college student and Ben Shapiro over the Boy Scouts being sexist.

The young lady asked "Show me in the Boy Scouts charter where it says it is for boys only."

To which Ben Shapiro replied, "Right there in the name you quoted. Boy Scouts."

Why is baptism by immersion? Because βαπτιζω is only transliterated, but when translated means to "dip or immerse."

So, why does "immerse" mean "immerse." Uh, well, because "immerse" means "immerse."

 

[TCassidy]

There are three modes of Baptism that are implemented. These are; Aspersion (sprinkling), Affusion (pouring) and Immersion (submerging).

The problem is, of course, that the OP is predicated on an incorrect assumption.

There are not three modes of Baptism. There is only one mode of Baptism.

Aspersion (sprinkling) is not βαπτιζω it is ραντιζω which would transliterate to "rantize" NOT "baptize."

Affusion (pouring) is not βαπτιζω it is ἐπιχέω which would transliterate to epicheo NOT "baptize."

In order to get the right answers you have to ask the right questions.

 

[Yeshua1]

Jerome, every Reformed denomination I know of save the Reformed Baptists anoint or pour. They are also pedo-baptists, not credo-baptists.

It is interesting though that quote in which even John Calvin agree its by immersion!