Post oft wrote:
Water is symbolic of the admission into the church the Covenant and ingrafting into Christ. At the inception of the Covenant blah blah.

They thought themselves concerned in the covenant with Abraham and therefore special "covenant children". Now listen to what the Lord said to them: "I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham "! Ha! Covenant Children indeed!

And then we have the constant affirmation in Galatians that the children of Abraham are those who like Abraham believe. And don't forget Romans 9:6,7 "For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children"!!!!

You don't understand any of these things DO YOU?

Z White wrote:
Biblicist:
(1) see above (2) You didn't understand my question: If man determines his own volition, what inclines him to determine his volition a certain way and not another; and what determined THAT inclination...ad infinitum? (3) Things don't "work out" God's way; they infallibly happen in precisely the way He has decreed. A limited god depends on his superior power and knowledge to "outwit" man "in the end," as if in some cosmic chess match. The sovereign God does ALL His pleasure. (4) You confuse His sovereign will (decree) with His moral will (command).

John UK wrote:
Yes, sure I will, and I would appreciate a refutation. ..if there is a good argument against what was said about these two baptistic events, I am more than willing to hear it.

But this is just another typical Presby. attempt to set aside the Bible by comparing apples with pears. The so called analagous examples are anything but.

I will deal with the cases you are interested in sometime this week. But, for the moment, since you like material written by Dr Masters, I will refer you to the following by him, which I think you will find useful if assessing the so called analagous examples:

John UK wrote:
Mike New York, Biblicist
Thankfully I'm not in a position to baptise anyone, nor do I want to. However, the reason I mentioned that immersion would have been impossible on Pentecost was as a result of taking Arthur's advice to read some literature he linked to. This was about six years ago, and you'll remember, Mike, as Arthur used to post oft.
I've had a cast about, and found this site which seems to have the whole text about William the Baptist who married Dora the Presby. I thought it excellent at the time, and as I could not refute the good and scriptural arguments (without any need for the greek brought into it), I was quite convinced, not that immersion was wrong, but that certain events in the Bible like Pentecost were not as cut and dried as I previously thought, and as I have an open mind when the argument is biblically based, I was convinced. But if any can read this document and argue with the argument, I am prepared to listen to it also.
Have a long read at [URL=http://boston.server101.com/william_the_baptist2.htm]]]WILLIAM THE BAPTIST[/URL]

John UK wrote:
This is turning out to be a fascinating church history research project, and I'm grateful for all the quotes. Notwithstanding.......
It would seem to me that the baptisms performed on Pentecost, subsequent to Peter's preaching the gospel, could not have been by full immersion.
Courtesy of Arthur (Scotland) and William the Baptist.

Pres. B. wrote:
"James W. Dale gives many examples..where baptizo does not mean to dip or immerse...(B. Schwertley)

Witsius: ".. the native signification of the words baptein and baptizein is to plunge, to dip."

Zanchy: Baptism is a Greek word.. first and properly it signifies immersion in water: for the proper signification of baptizo is to immerse, to plunge, to overwhelm in water."

Beza: "Baptizo signifies to dip, since it comes from bapto, and since things to be dyed are immersed."

Turretine: "The word baptism is of Greek origin, and is derived from the verb bapto; which signifies to dip, and to dye; Baptizein to baptize, to dip into, to immerse."

Calvin: "The word baptize signifies to immerse"

P Martyr: "As Christ, by baptism, hath drawn us with him into his death and burial, so He hath drawn us out into life. This doth the dipping into the water, and the issuing forth again signify, when we are baptized."

Mike wrote:
Hmmm. Now this makes me wonder how the totally depraved can slip deeper into depravity when they are already in 100%

Pres. B. wrote:
..church which invented its baptism hypothesis in 1521.

Witsius: "It is certain that both John the Baptist, and the disciples of Christ, ordinarily practiced immersion, whose example was followed by the ancient church."

Turretin: "Immersion was used in former times.. but now, especially in cold countries, when the church began to extend itself toward the north, plunging was changed into sprinkling, and aspersion only is used."

Vitringa: "The act of baptizing is the immersion of believers in water. This expresses the force of the word. Thus also it was performed by Christ and the apostles."

Calvin: "It is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient church"

Curcellaeus: "Baptism was performed by plunging the whole body into water, and not by sprinkling a few drops, as is now th practice.. Nor did the disciples, that were sent by Christ administer baptism afterwards in any other way: and this is more agreeable to the signification of the ordinance."

Z White wrote:
(1) Yes.

Z White wrote:
(2) What then determines man's volition? And his volition to HAVE a certain volition? What then determines THAT inclination toward this certain volition? etc.ad infinitum.

Z White wrote:
God's decree is the ultimate cause behind all reality; else how does it come to be?

Z White wrote:
(3) Yes, it makes sense when one lays aside the myth of "free will" and sees all reality as predetermined by God for the purpose of showing forth His unfathomable, infinite, multi-faceted glory.

Z White wrote:
4) a) Spiritually dead, not bodily. b) Who are you, O man?

Presbyfacts wrote:
a] No we don't. Baptism means something quite different to them as I'm sure you know.

Presbyfacts wrote:
b] Roman church is epicopalian not presbyterian. Romanism developed over centuries until *GOD* brought His Church out from under and they protested about the non-Biblical practices setting up the Protestant Church in the process

Presbyfacts wrote:
As for Baptism? It does not contribute to salvation and the essential doctrines of Scripture, by grace and the Holy Spirit, are in a sense not up for debate.

Sprinkle wrote:
Did you notice in the history of the Reformation, that the only guys who "should" have used immersion is the Anabaptists, but even They did not use this mode till later!

You can pride yourselves in keeping to your Roman Catholic beliefs and practices in relation to infants!!

Z White wrote:
..man's state as DEAD in trespasses and sins, being ENSLAVED to sin (helplessly inclined to choose evil).

Z White wrote:
Further, if the will were truly neutral, what but God's decree would account for a decision in EITHER direction?

Z White wrote:
He has determined what we shall do of our own accord.

Z White wrote:
They don't become "more dead" but continue in deadness...The purpose is judgment.

Dinger wrote:
Calvin baptised babies by sprinkle!
So, What do you think?
I see you could not answer the point I made about the Eunuch's pool.
Now you and John UK remember that you are not to add anything to Scripture like increasing the depth of water to accomodate the modern Baptist philosophy.

Calvin did sprinkle, but that just shows how stupid the Presby. position is. Acknowledge that the ancients' practice was immersion, but side it aside because symbolism is not so important after all. You cannot even bring yourself to agree with Calvin on the first point. Shows how prejudiced you are.

Listen to what Paul says in Corinthians

1 Corinthians 11:2
Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

John UK wrote:
Like this:
Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
Isaiah 55:6-7 KJV

John UK wrote:
A Disciple?

"Romans 10:13
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved."

Michael Hranek wrote:
Biblicist
You've given me something good to think upon.
A lot to think about.
Thanks

The main point however is about the underlying greek texts. What is the modern critical textual tradition saying about the texts? They suggest that all texts are equally valid. All the experts have to do is figure out for all of us dumb heads what the autographs actually said. IOW which variants they consider to be part of the original autographs.

John UK wrote:
Faithful Remnant
You surprise me. Are you saying that when you were baptised with the Holy Spirit, you were not immersed, saturated, completely enveloped? Did he not fill you head to toe? You only had a few drops on the forehead?
Surely not!

Faithful Remnant wrote:
Immersion is fine and acceptable, but not an absolute requirement for a valid baptism. If so, why does God pour out and fill believers with the Holy Spirit by a falling instead of immersing them in the Spirit and this is called by the Apostles a baptism(Acts 11:15,16)? 'Cause there's more to the original word.

Let us suppose I said to you I shall pour out water into a deep basin so that you can immerse your hands into the water. Would this suggest to your mind that the pouring is the Baptism?

Read the idea of pouring in Acts 2 alongside verse 4, "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost..." Not merely received a few drops, but such an abundance that they were submerged and thereby full!

Ephesians 5:18
And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit