But believers baptism of consenting adults is not a re-baptism, for the simple reason that their previous ‘infant bap-tism was not truly or validly a baptism. Furthermore, the Greek word for baptism means ‘immersion.’ So inasmuch as you Presbyterians dont immerse your babies at all but only have their little heads sprinkled with water, your so-called ‘infant baptism is actually no baptism at all. In addition there is also the other essential requirement that while you were infants, you did not consent to receiving these drops of water. Hence, you and your wife both still need to be baptized — seeing that neither of you has ever been immersed as a believer!
P.: By ‘immersed I take it that you mean ‘submersed? For one could conceivably have had part of ones head ‘immersed or dipped into a baptismal font without ever having had ones whole body ‘submersed. Anyway, where do you read in Gods Word that ‘baptize means ‘submerse?
B.: Well, after all, Jesus Himself was baptized by ‘submersion3 — and baptized only after He had grown up, too. Dont you want to follow His example?4
P.: We should remember that Jesus had Himself baptized as our Substitute, so that His baptism can never be imitated. You see, just as the adult first Adam fell into sin as the federal representative of all his children — so too did the adult Jesus as the Second Adam have Himself baptized as the federal representative of all His children. For after the unclean sinners had been con-verted and baptized (whereby their sins were so to speak symbo-lically washed away in the waters of the Jordan), the pure and sinless Jesus submitted to baptism in the ‘sin-polluted waters of the Jordan. That indicates He took our sins upon Himself.5 But quite apart from this, I too could reason that inasmuch as Jesus was circumcised as an infant6 — we we too should be baptized as infants. For baptism is the unbloody sign7 which replaced bloody circumcision after the death of Christ. Indeed, only unchristian and never-baptized Heathen and Jews and Muslims should ever be baptized as adults8 after their conversion to Christianity.
B.: Very well, lets forget about the case of Jesus own baptism – though its clear to me that the Saviour was definitely submersed. However, the Ethiopian eunuch was definitely submersed too. After all, we distinctly read that he went down into the water, was baptized, and then came up out of the water!9
P.: Thats not quite what the text says. What Gods word does say about this, however, is that “they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water…”9
“Notice it says: that “they both went down into the water”; that the eunuch was baptized by Philip; and that they both then came up out of the water. Now, if you insist on deducing from all this that the eunuch was sub-mersed — which is not actually stated — then you should also be consistent and conclude that Philip too was submersed. But even you dont believe that — do you?
Incidentally, the same applies in the case of the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. So that there is no proof that Jesus was submersed, either. In fact, at His baptism He seems to have been sealed as our great Prophet and Priest and King — by being anointed with water poured upon His forehead.10
B.: But John the Baptist did baptize in the River Jordan and with “much water.”11 Surely that indicates that he necessarily submersed his converts – doesnt it?