Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: drlevy88
We can thank the KJV for bringing us the term "baptism." King James, because of the "sprinkle baptism" theology of the Anglican church, didn't want a literal translation of the Greek term of which "baptism" is basically a transliteration.

Interesting. Well, this particular Christian has never, does not, and will never believe in a "sprinkle baptism." In fact, I have never visited a Christian church where this was the method of baptism.

Since baptism is an example of dying and being risen again, sprinkle baptism doesn't hold to this notion at all. If one dies, he is buried. Therefore, the complete submersion of the body into the baptismal water. Then, he is raised from the "dead," which is the total coming out of the baptismal water.

I'd be interested in knowing which Christian denomination(s) you are referring to here.

175 posted on 09/17/2002 9:49:27 PM PDT by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies ]


To: rdb3
I'd be interested in knowing which Christian denomination(s) you are referring to here.

Anglican/Episcopalian, of course ('s what I said :-)

I can overlook differences in methods of the baptism ceremony itself, since I do not believe physical baptism to be salvific in nature. Getting dunked or getting splashed or sprinkled, all are in some sense symbolic declarations of what has happened to you in Christ. However KJV's creation of a new, specialized word for "immersed" -- in my opinion -- robs other scripture verses of the impact they could have in English translation, such as references to baptism in the Holy Spirit.

252 posted on 09/18/2002 9:58:27 PM PDT by drlevy88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson