Quote
Soli Deo Gloria said:
Still waiting to hear from a presbyterian.
While you are waiting, how about hearing from a "Presbygational"? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> (Savoy Declaration type, aka: Owen)

I do believe there is more biblical evidence for effusion or aspersion over immersion. However, I find no warrant to exclude immersion of any of the other two modes. And I certainly don't buy the argument that immersion "best accords with what baptism symbolizes". This argument is in the mind of the one espousing only and can find no biblical warrant for it, since baptism is the representation of the Gospel and the work of Christ; e.g., death-resurrection, filth-cleansing, etc.

For me the most stubborn obstacles which my Babdist brethren are etymological and practical:

Etymological: The Mode of Baptism by John Murray (.pdf file) - "bapto and baptizo" do not mean "immersion".

Practical: The Token of the Covenant by William MacIntyre - given the logistics required for immersion, it is nearly impossible that immersion was practiced by the Apostles.

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]