The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum 13.125 Hours

Not wanting to get into a debate on baptism (we've been over it again and again here and it hasn't always been pretty, on both sides!) but when I saw the following, I thought about Pil's claim that 3,000 people couldn't have been immersed on Pentecost in a single day.

Not endorsing Rick Warren, of course (his advertisement for this day was an atrocity...) but the Baptist Press says he baptized 800 people in a 3.5 hour long marathon. At that rate, it would take 13.125 hours to immerse 3,000 people. Plus, it is not at all unlikely there was more than one person performing the baptisms (as there could have been at Warren's service too).

All you would have to do is triple the number of baptizers at Warren's service and you could easily have 3,000 immersed in a single day.

Marie,

I can't find any information about how many baptizers were involved (& for some reason I'm unable to access the Baptist Press website). Was it just Rick Warren himself doing the baptizing? And how exactly did he do it? Did he use the full baptismal formula over each person? I don't think you've got enough evidence here so far to disprove Pilgrim's point.

Addendum: Actually, it's evident that there's no way it could have been only Rick Warren doing the baptizing, as that would mean baptizing almost 4 persons every minute!

Yeh, I can only imagine what was said by the "administrator" as each person was baptized. I'm sure it was more than brief.

Now... neither do I want to get into another fruitless debate over the recipients nor especially the mode of baptism, but I would have you read or reread as the case may be in the Appendix of The Token of the Covenant, by William MacIntyre, (about 2/3 down the page), where it begins with: "This falsifying of testimony presents also other forms.", to the end. It's just a couple of paragraphs. But interestingly enough, even one of the stalwart Baptists, Adam Clarke admits that it would be very difficult indeed to imagine that those baptized by John the Baptist were immersed.

Anyway, what he has to say is more than interesting, especially since it is written by a Baptist.

In His grace,

Pilgrim

I am trying to figure out where in Scripture Dr.Clarke got the idea that John baptised over 1/2 a million people.

Tom

But it wasn't Adam Clarke who wrote:

but rather the quote is prefaced by:

As to where in Scripture the man came up with the figure, that is a question you would need to ask him. However, his calculations concerning the time required to baptise an individual which did not take into account which he later wrote needed to be added, e.g., change rooms, etc., are certainly worthy of thought.

MacIntyre's entire point in that section is to show the serious problems associated with the claim that baptism and the Greek words for baptism are to be understood and can be only understood to mean immersion. Whether there actually were 500 thousand or even 5000 people baptized, the criticism is still legitimate and poses an unsurmountable problem.

Pil...Adam Clarke was a Methodist, if I'm not mistaken...

Or are there two Adam Clarkes???

Marie,

You could be correct that Adam Clarke was a British Methodist. Evidently, he is or was often quoted by Baptists to support their view and MacIntyre found several distortions in their quotes of Clarke and grabbed that opportunity to show not only the Baptist dishonesty but that Clarke actually stood opposed to the notion that "baptism = immersion". This is what the section linked to is about.

In His grace,

I have never heard of Adam Clarke in my life, and I have never heard of any Baptist using him to support baptistic views. Why would they need to do so? The unequivocal statements of Luther and Calvin that Christian baptism was originally by immersion are really quite sufficient.

If, as you say, Pilgrim, you don't want a debate on baptism, please don't smear Baptists with 'dishonesty.' It really isn't very kind. If, on the other hand, you do want a debate, I'm just the chap to give you one.

Steve

Well Steve as one of the other Baptists on this board might I point out that your lack of knowledge regarding the use of Clarke by "some Baptists" doesn't necessitate that they didn't employ him. Read more it will do you some good I'm sure. Frankly I've seen some poor arguments from my Baptist brethren that bring nothing but shame to the debate. So unless you personally can prove different regarding the article that Pilgrim referenced and are willing to show it I suggest you keep a civil tongue.

Now I've been here for the debates, they bring nothing but division and are worth nothing! It is entirely different matter to debate something that is a first cause or principle. But regarding the method of the ordinances (sacraments if you will) and to whom they are administered to they are not a first cause, they are at best a third cause. And as such should remain with those that are convinced as to how they should be preformed.

Whoa there, big fellow!
One thing that both Baptists and others have in common is that we're all sinners, as you have amply proved with your last post. There's no need to bite my head off.

It was not I who started this thread, nor have I accused any Presbyterians or others of 'dishonesty.' Nor am I particularly eager to engage in a debate on baptism. I spent long hours some years ago debating the subject on another board. I must have read literally hundreds of posts, books and links at that time. Never once to my recollection did the name of Adam Clarke come up. If that makes me ignorant, then I accept the rebuke.

My only point, by which I stand, is that if if there is peace on the baptism front, let there be an end to snide accusations and comments.

Steve

Steve, I hope you don't mind me using your cognomen, again let me make myself clear. I was here for the baptism wars on this board. The end result was that a lot of good people left. And I miss them as they were friends. I don't want to see this happen again. Is the baptism question settled? Yes it is. We agree that we disagree regarding the subject of who gets baptized. The paedobaptist have seen the credobaptists' arguments and haven't found them compelling. The credobaptists have seen the paedobaptists' reasons and have disagreed even those who hold to a form (this is for you Pilgrim ) of covenant theology that is similar to that of the paedobaptists. The end result is that we disagree and we live in peace recognizing that we still have much to learn from each other.

I'm with Boanerges! And, as the one who started this thread, I especially don't want to see this denigrate into the war that happened here several years ago. grace2u, I don't believe Pilgrim was smearing the name of Baptists. I have not heard Clarke used by Baptists, but that doesn't mean no Baptists have used him. My views don't stand or fall by what Clarke, Judson, Calvin, or anyone says, except that which the Bible teaches. I know Pilgrim would say the same.

I'm sure Pil would also rejoice in knowing that tonight some Reformed Baptists prayed for his church's mission work in the Ukraine!!

Hi Pilgrim

I wasn't going to respond to your post, but when I think of some of the claims that you make concerning the supposed insurmountable problem. I need to at least ask a few questions for clarification.

Perhaps John had assistants? Cf. John 4:1-2. Is there Scripture that shows this one way or another? If not I don't think it is wise for either side to use it in their arguments.

Are we told how long it took?

Just to be clear, like the other Reformed Baptists in this thread who came to your defense, I echo their comments.

Tom