Monday, May 16, 2011

An appropriate summary of the argument over modes of baptism

Comes from Doug Wilson, with whom I disagree heartily on the mode of baptism--he favors sprinkling/affusion of infants, I am Baptistic (oops, Immersistic--can't rely on just a transliteration!).  :^)

In short, Baptists Immersists like myself tend to say "well, this is how the word 'immerse' is used, that's our best guess about how and when it is to be performed," while Presbyterians and others who favor infant sprinkling note parallels between circumcision, Old Testament sacrifices, and more.

To which I respond, "that's all very interesting, but that's not the parallel that the Scripture follows."  And so we disagree, as I take solace in the fact that it's "not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God." 


W.B. Picklesworth said...

Immerse, sprinkle, spray, pour, mist, etc... The water is only a sign that accompanies the promise and has no significance aside from it. The promise is pure gospel that comes from beyond the law and so the form of the water doesn't matter, though I think it should be appropriate (water balloons are out.) So long as we hold to the particular form that the water takes we are indeed following the path of the Judaizers. And those are my two Lutheran cents (sense?) ;)

Gino said...

too bad there isnt some earthly office to take these disagreements to, where we could get a true infallable answer.

why didnt Jesus think of this?

Bike Bubba said...

I was thinking of asking one of his "nephews" about it, but couldn't get a straight answer about whether to go to Rome or Avignon. :^)