by Pastor Peter Edwards
A CASE
submitted to the consideration of baptists.
Before I enter on the Mode of Baptism, I would take the liberty of proposing to my Baptist friends a plain case; not so much a case of conscience as a case of criticism. That on which this case is founded is as follows: it is well known that under the present dispensation there are two instituted ordinances; the one in Scripture is expressed by the term deipnon, a upper, the other by baptisma, baptism. The proper and obvious meaning of deipnon is a feast or a common meal, Mark vi. 21; John xxi. 22; the proper meaning of baptisma is said to be the immersion of the whole body. The case then is this:
If, because the proper meaning of the term baptisma, baptism, is the immersion of the whole body, a person, who is not immersed, cannot be said to have been baptized, since nothing short of immersion amounts to the full import of the word baptism;—if this be true, I should be glad to know whether as deipnon, a supper, properly means a feast or common meal, a person who, in the use of that ordinance, takes only a piece of bread a half an inch square, and drinks a tablespoonfull of wine, which is neither a feast nor a common meal, and so does not come up to the proper meaning of the word, can be said to have received the Lord’s Supper?
Mr. Booth, I presume, saw this in Mr. Piries’ book, but has not taken any notice of it; I therefore request some Baptist friend to turn his attention to it.
Click here to return to the Bible Lighthouse homepage.
Click here for a printer friendly copy of this article.