Who are you quoting? I can't find that statement in the discussion. I didn't say it.
See Post #91:
It seems to me that these men (Reformers, Puritans, Nadere Reformatie) were not in a context where the mode of baptism was a subject of any great debate. They all practiced afusion or aspersion. This, I think, is why they felt more freedom in admitting—"The Lord Jesus was baptized by immersion (Matt 3:16), as was the eunuch (Acts 8:38). The apostle also refers to this: 'Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death' (Rom 6:4);"—while also saying,
"It is not of the least consequence" (Calvin,
Institutes, IV.15.19).
And again Post #97:
I'm fully aware of the history of the Reformation and the role the Anabaptists played. What I said was, "the mode of baptism was not a subject of any great debate." That's a fact. The principle men of the era rejected Anabaptist views of baptism. Anabaptist were a radical fringe group and they were esteemed as such by most Christians of that time. None of the Reformers espoused baptistic convictions and only very few of the Puritan era. So no, it was not a subject of any great debate for them. They lived in time when the vast majority were all of the same mind about the matter. And that is why I think, they felt a greater measure of liberty in admitting that the mode of immersion is that described in Scripture and employed by the early church.
If you are going to use quotation marks, it should be an actual quote. Otherwise you risk mischaracterizing your opponents.
If you were trying to say something else in Posts #91 and #97 then the problem does not lie in my one-sentence summary.
But that aside, as Grant has already said, how big a debate it was or not is something of a distraction from the main discussion. I think it would be profitable to move on.
I simply aim to correct a factual error.
If you're going to begin a thread by quoting Luther speaking positively of baptism by immersion, if you're going to ignore the historical context of his words that immersion is not a necessary thing, and then if you're going to the same for Calvin and the Puritans, you should receive some pushback.
I am saying, plainly, that the Reformers were not silent about immersion. The Puritans were not silent. (I again direct you to Michael Harrison.) Their comments about immersion baptism -- especially with the qualification that immersion is not a necessary thing! -- ought to be considered in their historical contexts. They did not favour immersion baptism because it was more biblical but they hadn't thought it through or debated it.
Yes, the debate today is different. In the period of the Reformation and afterwards, the conversation surrounding immersion took place within the broader one of Anabaptism. (Indeed, any comments about mode of baptism are bound up in baptism generally. Luther, Calvin, etc. are speaking of infants as well as converted adults.) But I repeat myself.
Further, you have said that Presbyterians today are unwilling to admit immersion baptism in the Bible and the early church, because such an admission would compromise their view. So I will not be accused of mischaracterization, here is a quotation:
I think some Presbyterians today are not as willing to make the same admissions (if at all) for fear of it compromising their own view.
I hope you would consider that there are Presbyterians whose convictions are not held merely due a risk of approaching a Baptistic view of baptism. There might just be a little more to it.
) is a “second class” Oreo experience. Surely there can be no debate there.
