» Site Navigation | | | » Online Users: 110 | | 27 members and 83 guests | | Anton Bruckner, Augusta, BobVigneault, caddy, CaseyBessette, ChristianTrader, christianyouth, etexas, InevitablyReformed, Jon Peters, Kevin, matthew11v25, Mindaboo, MrMerlin777, packabacka, panta dokimazete, Pilgrim's Progeny, Scott Shahan, Theogenes, Theoretical | | Most users ever online was 856, 07-06-2007 at 12:19 AM. | |  | | 
04-17-2008, 10:56 AM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 1,117
Thanks: 187
Thanked 147 Times in 122 Posts
| | | Goodmorning y'all! Just a couple of quick things before I go into work. I'll catch up and answer follow-ups after work. (which could be late, I have to set up for a formal diner tomorrow).
Heb ch 9 doesn't say anything about baptism, only relating Jesus sacrifice to the whole OT Temple system.
The law that Jesus was fulfilling in His (John's) baptism wasn't any of the 'rituals' of the high priest, but his (John's) command to repent and be baptized. John wasn't a high priest, so he couldn't do them either. (If he was the high priest, why were the Pharisee's castigating him?)
I'm not saying that sprinkling isn't valid, esp if there isn't enough water. But I'm trying to grasp the connection to 'ritual washings'. Hence my theology behind it question. Because y'all are saying it's not in the Bible, when the Bible talks about going under the water, but it is sufficiently vague to allow sprinkling, if not enough water. It's the buried with him in baptism that's more clear than the ritual washing connection.
Thanks y'all for input - Grymir | 
04-17-2008, 11:37 AM
| | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: May 2006 Location: Moncton NB Canada
Posts: 2,160
Thanks: 256
Thanked 202 Times in 127 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Grymir Goodmorning y'all! Just a couple of quick things before I go into work. I'll catch up and answer follow-ups after work. (which could be late, I have to set up for a formal diner tomorrow).
Heb ch 9 doesn't say anything about baptism, only relating Jesus sacrifice to the whole OT Temple system.
The law that Jesus was fulfilling in His (John's) baptism wasn't any of the 'rituals' of the high priest, but his (John's) command to repent and be baptized. John wasn't a high priest, so he couldn't do them either. (If he was the high priest, why were the Pharisee's castigating him?)
I'm not saying that sprinkling isn't valid, esp if there isn't enough water. But I'm trying to grasp the connection to 'ritual washings'. Hence my theology behind it question. Because y'all are saying it's not in the Bible, when the Bible talks about going under the water, but it is sufficiently vague to allow sprinkling, if not enough water. It's the buried with him in baptism that's more clear than the ritual washing connection.
Thanks y'all for input - Grymir | OK.
First re-read ch 9 of Hebrews. The chapter is about the old ordinences of the eathly sanctuary being replaced. In the AV it calles the baptisims "divers washings". Do a greek look up, the word is baptismos. The author then goes on & refers to several of these baptisims. From memory I can recall the baptism of the book & the people, a sin offering baptism, and I know there is at least one other.
Hebrews 9 is ALL ABOUT BAPTISM! Any Hebrew that read the letter would know that immediatly. We miss it because we don't know the Levitical law.
Second re-read the gospels on the baptism of John & the baptism of Jesus. John refused to give Jesus the "baptism of repentence". He relented when Jesus asked to be baptised for another reason, to fullfil the law (i.e. for righeousness sake).
Are you really saying that Jesus needed a "baptism of repentance"?!?! Of what sin was Jesus repenting? Think about what you are saying for a second.
Also please remember who Johns father was. And what he was doing when the angel appeared to him to anounce the coming birth of John?
A high priest is, at the same time, an annual office AND a class or order of priests. Zacharius, & John his son, are both hereditary high priests. At any given time there could be hundreds of living "high priests"(!), but only one was THE "high priest" at a time.
Most of your mis-understanding seems to come from a limited knowledge of the OT practices & procedures, IMHO.
__________________
Kevin Rogers
Sovereign Community Church, PCA
Moncton NB
Last edited by Kevin; 04-17-2008 at 01:38 PM.
| | The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Kevin For This Useful Post: | | 
04-17-2008, 01:01 PM
|  | Moderator | | Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Tacoma, WA
Posts: 3,363
Thanks: 98
Thanked 592 Times in 352 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by CalvinandHodges Victorbravo: There is nothing wrong with a bias until someone, like Zadoc, tries to point one out on his opposition. As a VanTillian Presuppositionalist I have no problem with a bias. I am simply using Zadoc's own argument against himself. Since he seems it is an effective argument, then he should be able to swallow his own points.
Is that fair?
| It just hit me that this may not have been a rhetorical question.
Of course it's fair.  My comment was somewhat gratuitous. What triggered it is a general tendency I've noticed for some to invoke bias as a primary argument. I wasn't attacking your point.
Carry on. | 
04-17-2008, 01:07 PM
|  | Moderator | | Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Leduc, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 2,724
Thanks: 117
Thanked 380 Times in 202 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin First re-read ch 9 of Hebrews. The chapter is about the old ordinences of the eathly sanctuary being replaced. In the AV it calles the baptisims "divers washings". Do a greek look up, the word is baptizo. The author then goes on & refers to several of these baptisims. From memory I can recall the baptism of the book & the people, a sin offering baptism, and I know there is at least one other. | To be fair, the Greek word is 'Baptismos' which is a noun, not a verb. That doesn't mean it is not related to 'Baptizo' (which is a verb) but I thought I should make that clarification.
__________________
Rev. Daniel Kok
Pastor of Grace Reformed Church (URCNA)
Leduc, Alberta CANADA Church Blog
"there is no creature, either in heaven or on earth, who loves us more than Jesus Christ" Belgic Confession, Article 26
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? | | The Following User Says Thank You to Poimen For This Useful Post: | | 
04-17-2008, 01:36 PM
| | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: May 2006 Location: Moncton NB Canada
Posts: 2,160
Thanks: 256
Thanked 202 Times in 127 Posts
| | | Thanks pastor Kok. I was trying to point out that washings=baptisings and wrote from memory. Mea culpa. | | The Following User Says Thank You to Kevin For This Useful Post: | | 
04-17-2008, 01:36 PM
| | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: May 2006 Location: Moncton NB Canada
Posts: 2,160
Thanks: 256
Thanked 202 Times in 127 Posts
| |
To be fair (to myself  ) my point still stands.  | 
04-17-2008, 01:42 PM
|  | Moderator | | Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Leduc, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 2,724
Thanks: 117
Thanked 380 Times in 202 Posts
| | | Kevin:
I agree. Hebrews 9 does tells us a lot about baptism if we get past our assumptions about what baptism is or has to be. And note the word 'baptismos' is also used in Hebrews 6:2 where the author tells us that the "doctrine of baptism" is one of the elementary principles of doctrine. | 
04-18-2008, 01:29 AM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 1,117
Thanks: 187
Thanked 147 Times in 122 Posts
| | | Heb 6:2 is the possible link I've been asking for. I'm gonna do a little more looking and thinking. Which is what I want. Heb 6:2 could link Heb 9 to baptism. The Levities would be unfamiliar with the NT baptism, so the Heb 9 would not be obvious to them. It's about Jesus fulfilling all the Levitical system, so that His saving work is more than sufficient to us. But I want to think on the Heb6:2 passage, because the writer does say he's going on to the doctrine of baptism, which could play out in Heb 9.
quote - "Second re-read the gospels on the baptism of John & the baptism of Jesus. John refused to give Jesus the "baptism of repentance". He relented when Jesus asked to be baptized for another reason, to fulfill the law (i.e. for righteousness sake).
Are you really saying that Jesus needed a "baptism of repentance"?!?! Of what sin was Jesus repenting? Think about what you are saying for a second."
I have thought about this. John gave a new addition to the Law. Repent and be baptized. If Jesus did not do this, His sacrifice would not have been sufficient. Of course he didn't need it as that sentence frames it, but if it's commanded by the prophet (which is what John is, not a priest. The prophet presented God to the people. The Priest presented the people to God), then He had to do it. That's why Jesus baptism isn't a NT baptism. Which is something new. No comparison to 'ritual washings'. Which were not 'ritual' but actual cleansing. ie the sprinkling on the Bible, The People, (when this was done by Moses).
Anyway, I am going to think and consider the Heb 6:2. But it doesn't seem clear or related to baptism. As to my 'assumptions', well, that's not necessary. Research isn't the same as assumptions. I will go where the truth leads. That's why I ask many questions. And have gotten good answers. - Grymir | 
04-18-2008, 07:59 AM
| | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: May 2006 Location: Moncton NB Canada
Posts: 2,160
Thanks: 256
Thanked 202 Times in 127 Posts
| | | Hey, Brother. Why do you insist that John is not a priest?
Consider the facts;
# 1) The only way to become a priest is to be born one. Check.
He is the son of a priest, and descended from Aaron (on his mothers side).
# 2) Only a priest Can perform the OT Levitical ritual cleansings. Check.
Johns baptism passes the examination committee for technical accuracy according to the pharisaical purity commision.
# 3) A priest can be both a prophet and a priest. Check.
Remember Samuel? Thinks of other great prophets, many of whom performed the work of priest. If you think about it, the exceptions are few. But only one is need to prove the possibility & Samuel does that. | | The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Kevin For This Useful Post: | | 
04-18-2008, 01:27 PM
|  | Puritanboard Junior | | Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Davenport, IA
Posts: 1,117
Thanks: 187
Thanked 147 Times in 122 Posts
| | Kevin. Because it's not in scripture. Him being a prophet is. Only the apointed High Priest could do the 'ritual' cleanings, and only after he had purified himself with the appointed sacrifices and such. That's why I have problems with it.
I've a busy day, do it will be awhile before I can post. I'm not ignoring this. I'd like to ignore work today and spend my day with y'all, but bills must be paid!  | 
04-18-2008, 02:39 PM
|  | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 214
Thanks: 34
Thanked 20 Times in 18 Posts
| | | Back to the OP. Can CH or someone else list all the occurrence of the word "Baptismos" or "Baptizo" in the Bible, both NT and LXX? That could have settled the issue once and for all imho.
__________________
Polo
Layman, Chinese Evangelical Church/Independent
San Diego
For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever.  (Romans 11:36)
| 
04-18-2008, 03:01 PM
| | Puritanboard Senior | | Join Date: May 2006 Location: Moncton NB Canada
Posts: 2,160
Thanks: 256
Thanked 202 Times in 127 Posts
| | | No offense intended brother, but I think the heart of the misunderstanding here is a misunderstanding of the OT priesthood, and the office of prophet.
A man would be born an Iraelite. That was his nationality, or race.
He was also born into a tribe, Judah, Dan, etc. A member of these tribes could do whatever he had the talent and capital to do for a living. In practice sons would ordinarily follow their fathers footsteps.
To be a priest however you had to be born a priest. John was born a priest. No one asked him what he wanted to do for a living when he was a kid, it was a given. He would be a priest.
Now David in his liturgical reform divided the priests into 24 divisions, or courses. Only a qualified, properly trained, elected priest could be "acting High Priest" at a time. Many men however would be eligable for election to this office, including former high priests and other members of the proper division.
John was a member of this division, and had he right training, and had the right family tree.
As far as Johns exercising the office of prophet, this is (in my view) probably an office held most often by a priest. Even if it is not, tghe example of samuel proves that it can be. | 
04-18-2008, 03:36 PM
|  | Lanesterator Minimus | | Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hague, North Dakota
Posts: 1,234
Thanks: 282
Thanked 650 Times in 301 Posts
| | | Here are the LXX occurrences (according to Hatch and Redpath) with the LXX and and English translation of the LXX:
"Bapto"
Exodus 12:22 λήψεσθε δὲ δέσμην ὑσσώπου, καὶ βάψαντες ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ παρὰ τὴν θύραν καθίξετε τῆς φλιᾶς καὶ ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοτέρων τῶν σταθμῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος, ὅ ἐστι παρὰ τὴν θύραν· ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐξελεύσεσθε ἕκαστος τὴν θύραν τοῦ οἴκου αὐτοῦ ἕως πρωΐ.
English translation: And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and having dipped it into some of the blood that is by the door, ye shall touch the lintel, and shall put it upon both door-posts, even of the blood which is by the door; but ye shall not go out every one from the door of his house till the morning.
Leviticus 4:6 καὶ βάψει ὁ ἱερεὺς τὸν δάκτυλον εἰς τὸ αἷμα, καὶ προσρανεῖ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος ἑπτάκις ἔναντι Κυρίου, κατὰ τὸ καταπέτασμα τὸ ἅγιον
English: And the priest shall dip his finger into the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord, over against the holy veil.
Leviticus 4:17 καὶ βάψει ὁ ἱερεὺς τὸν δάκτυλον ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ μόσχου καΙ ρανεῖ ἑπτάκις ἔναντι Κυρίου, κατενώπιον τοῦ καταπετάσματος τοῦ ἁγίου·
English: And the priest shall dip his finger into some of the blood of the calf, and shall sprinkle it seven times before the Lord, in front of the veil of the sanctuary.
Leviticus 6:9 τὸ δὲ καταλειφθὲν ἀπ᾿ αὐτῆς ἔδεται ᾿Ααρὼν καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ· ἄζυμα βρωθήσεται ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ, ἐν αὐλῇ τῆς σκηνῆς τοῦ μαρτυρίου ἔδονται αὐτήν.
English: And Aaron and his sons shall eat that which is left of it: it shall be eaten without leaven in a holy place, they shall eat it in the court of the tabernacle of witness.
Leviticus 11:32 καὶ πᾶν, ἐφ᾿ ὃ ἂν ἐπιπέσῃ ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸ τεθνηκότων αὐτῶν, ἀκάθαρτον ἔσται ἀπὸ παντὸς σκεύους ξυλίνου ἢ ἱματίου ἢ δέρματος ἢ σάκκου· πᾶν σκεῦος, ὃ ἂν ποιηθῇ ἔργον ἐν αὐτῷ, εἰς ὕδωρ βαφήσεται καὶ ἀκάθαρτον ἔσται ἕως ἑσπέρας· καὶ καθαρὸν ἔσται.
English: And on whatsoever one of their dead bodies shall fall it shall be unclean; whatever wooden vessel, or garment, or skin, or sack it may be, every vessel in which work should be done, shall be dipped in water, and shall be unclean till evening; and then it shall be clean.
Leviticus 14:6 καὶ τὸ ὀρνίθιον τὸ ζῶν λήψεται αὐτὸ καὶ τὸ ξύλον τὸ κέδρινον καὶ τὸ κλωστὸν κόκκινον καὶ τὸν ὕσσωπον, καὶ βάψει αὐτὰ καὶ τὸ ὀρνίθιον τὸ ζῶν εἰς τὸ αἷμα τοῦ ὀρνιθίου τοῦ σφαγέντος ἐφ᾿ ὕδατι ζῶντι·
English: And as for the living bird he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the spun scarlet, and the hyssop, and he shall dip them and the living bird into the blood of the bird that was slain over running water.
Leviticus 14:16 καὶ βάψει τὸν δάκτυλον τὸν δεξιὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐλαίου τοῦ ὄντος ἐπὶ τῆς χειρὸς αὐτοῦ τῆς ἀριστερᾶς καὶ ρανεῖ τῷ δακτύλῳ ἑπτάκις ἔναντι Κυρίου·
English: And he shall dip with the finger of his right hand into some of the oil that is in his left hand, and he shall sprinkle with his finger seven times before the Lord.
Leviticus 14:51 καὶ λήψεται τὸ ξύλον τὸ κέδρινον καὶ τὸ κεκλωσμένον κόκκινον καὶ τὸν ὕσσωπον καὶ τὸ ὀρνίθιον τὸ ζῶν, καὶ βάψει αὐτὸ εἰς τὸ αἷμα τοῦ ὀρνιθίου τοῦ ἐσφαγμένου ἐφ᾿ ὕδατι ζῶντι, καὶ περιρρανεῖ ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐπὶ τὴν οἰκίαν ἑπτάκις,
English: And he shall take the cedar wood, and the spun scarlet, and the hyssop, and the living bird; and shall dip it into the blood of the bird slain over running water, and with them he shall sprinkle the house seven times.
Numbers 19:18 καὶ λήψεται ὕσσωπον καὶ βάψει εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ ἀνὴρ καθαρός, καὶ περιρρανεῖ ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ σκεύη καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς ψυχάς, ὅσαι ἂν ὦσιν ἐκεῖ, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἡμμένον τοῦ ὀστέου τοῦ ἀνθρωπίνου ἢ τοῦ τραυματίου ἢ τοῦ τεθνηκότος ἢ τοῦ μνήματος·
English: And a clean man shall take hyssop, and dip it into the water, and sprinkle it upon the house, and the furniture, and all the souls that are therein, and upon him that touched the human bone, or the slain man, or the corpse, or the tomb.
Deuteronomy 33:24 καὶ τῷ ᾿Ασὴρ εἶπεν· εὐλογημένος ἀπὸ τέκνων ᾿Ασὴρ καὶ ἔσται δεκτὸς τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς αὐτοῦ. βάψει ἐν ἐλαίῳ τὸν πόδα αὐτοῦ·
English: And to Aser he said, Aser is blessed with children; and he shall be acceptable to his brethren: he shall dip his foot in oil.
Joshua 3:15 ὡς δὲ εἰσεπορεύοντο οἱ ἱερεῖς οἱ αἴροντες τὴν κιβωτὸν τῆς διαθήκης ἐπὶ τὸν ᾿Ιορδάνην καὶ οἱ πόδες τῶν ἱερέων τῶν αἰρόντων τὴν κιβωτὸν τῆς διαθήκης Κυρίου ἐβάφησαν εἰς μέρος τοῦ ὕδατος τοῦ ᾿Ιορδάνου· ὁ δὲ ᾿Ιορδάνης ἐπληροῦτο καθ ὅλην τὴν κρηπίδα αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ ἡμέραι θερισμοῦ πυρῶν·
English: And when the priests that bore the ark of the covenant of the Lord entered upon Jordan, and the feet of the priests that bore the ark of the covenant of the Lord were dipped in part of the water of Jordan; (now Jordan overflowed all its banks about the time of wheat harvest:
Ruth 2:14 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ Βοόζ· ἤδη ὥρα τοῦ φαγεῖν, πρόσελθε ὧδε καὶ φάγεσαι τῶν ἄρτων καὶ βάψεις τὸν ψωμόν σου ἐν τῷ ὄξει. καὶ ἐκάθισε Ροὺθ ἐκ πλαγίων τῶν θεριζόντων, καὶ ἐβούνισεν αὐτῇ Βοὸζ ἄλφιτον, καὶ ἔφαγε καὶ ἐνεπλήσθη καὶ κατέλιπε.
English: And Booz said to her, Now it is time to eat; come hither, and thou shalt eat of the bread, and thou shalt dip thy morsel in the vinegar: and Ruth sat by the side of the reapers: and Booz handed her meal, and she ate, and was satisfied, and left.
1 Samuel 14:27 καὶ ᾿Ιωνάθαν οὐκ ἀκηκόει ἐν τῷ ὁρκίζειν τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ τὸν λαόν· καὶ ἐξέτεινε τὸ ἄκρον τοῦ σκήπτρου αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔβαψεν αὐτὸ εἰς τὸ κηρίον τοῦ μέλιτος καὶ ἐπέστρεψε τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἀνέβλεψαν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ.
English: And Jonathan had not heard when his father adjured the people; and he reached forth the end of the staff that was in his hand, an dipped it into the honeycomb, and returned his hand to his mouth, and his eyes recovered their sight.
2 Kings 8:15 καὶ ἐγένετο τῇ ἐπαύριον, καὶ ἔλαβε τὸ μαχμὰ καὶ ἔβαψεν ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ περιέβαλεν ἐπὶ τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀπέθανε, καὶ ἐβασίλευσεν ᾿Αζαὴλ ἀντ᾿ αὐτοῦ.
English: And it came to pass on the next day that he took a thick cloth, and dipped it in water, and put it on his face, and he died: and Azael reigned in his stead.
Job 9:31 ἱκανῶς ἐν ρύπῳ με ἔβαψας, ἐβδελύξατο δέ με ἡ στολή·
English: thou hadst thoroughly plunged me in filth, and my garment had abhorred me.
Psalm 68:23 (67:24 in LXX) ὅπως ἂν βαφῇ ὁ πούς σου ἐν αἵματι, ἡ γλῶσσα τῶν κυνῶν σου ἐξ ἐχθρῶν παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ.
English: That thy foot may be dipped in blood, and the tongue of thy dogs be stained with that of thine enemies.
"Baptizo"
2 Kings 5:14 καὶ κατέβη Ναιμὰν καὶ ἐβαπτίσατο ἐν τῷ ᾿Ιορδάνῃ ἑπτάκις κατὰ τὸ ρῆμα ῾Ελισαιέ, καὶ ἐπέστρεψεν ἡ σάρξ αὐτοῦ ὡς σάρξ παιδαρίου μικροῦ, καὶ ἐκαθαρίσθη.
English: So Naiman went down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the word of Elisaie: and his flesh returned to him as the flesh of a little child, and he was cleansed.
Judith 12:7 καὶ προσέταξεν ᾿Ολοφέρνης τοῖς σωματοφύλαξι μὴ διακωλύειν αὐτήν. καὶ παρέμεινεν ἐν τῇ παρεμβολῇ ἡμέρας τρεῖς, καὶ ἐξεπορεύετο κατὰ νύκτα εἰς τὴν φάραγγα Βαιτυλούα καὶ ἐβαπτίζετο ἐν τῇ παρεμβολῇ ἐπὶ τῆς πηγῆς τοῦ ὕδατος·
English: So Holofernes commanded his guards not to hinder her. She remained in the camp three days. She went out each night to the valley of Bethulia, and bathed at the spring in the camp.
Isaiah 21:4 ἡ καρδία μου πλανᾶται, καὶ ἡ ἀνομία με βαπτίζει, ἡ ψυχή μου ἐφέστηκεν εἰς φόβον.
English: My heart wanders, and transgression overwhelms me; my soul is occupied with fear.
"Baptos"
Ezekiel 23:15 ἐζωσμένους ποικίλματα ἐπὶ τὰς ὀσφύας αὐτῶν, καὶ τιάραι βαπταὶ ἐπὶ τῶν κεφαλῶν αὐτῶν, ὄψις τρισσὴ πάντων, ὁμοίωμα υἱῶν Χαλδαίων, γῆς πατρίδος αὐτῶν,
English: having variegated girdles on their loins, having also richly dyed attire upon their heads; all had a princely appearance, the likeness of the children of the Chaldeans, of their native land. | | The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to greenbaggins For This Useful Post: | | 
04-19-2008, 12:23 AM
|  | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Girard, Illinois
Posts: 529
Thanks: 191
Thanked 63 Times in 47 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Grymir I think my post #28 got missed in the shuffle
I got this quote from the other thread - "It is often, but erroneously, supposed that the controversy between our baptist brethren and the rest of the Christian Church with respect to Baptism is a question of mode; they affirming that the only right mode is to immerse -- we affirming that the best mode is to sprinkle. This is a great mistake. The real Baptist position -- as stated by Dr. Alexander Carson (p. 55) -- is, that the command to baptize is a simple and single command to immerse, in order to symbolize the death, burial, and resurrection of the believer with Christ. The true position maintained by other Christians is, that Baptism is a simple and single command to wash with water, in order to symbolize the purification wrought by the Holy Ghost. Hence the mode of washing has nothing to do with it."
hmm... Is this what is behind the whole baptism debate (the theology behind it) or do people debate about the mode only, without the theology? | I think this is an issue, I recall hearing and saying it myself in Baptist churches, something like this. "I now baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (submerse) buried with Christ in baptism (bring up out of water) raised to walk in newness of life by the power of His resurrection" No mention of the symbolism of the purification wrought by the Holy Spirit. Most baptists, if not all, do see it differently.
__________________
Paul W.
Soon to be leaving
Girard, Illinois
| | The Following User Says Thank You to Pilgrim's Progeny For This Useful Post: | | 
05-06-2008, 11:33 PM
|  | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Youngsville, NC
Posts: 39
Thanks: 4
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
| | Hi, guys,
Just browsing about, I found an interesting tidbit on Baptizo - Greek Lexicon, included with a lexical entry for the Greek word baptizo:
to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
to overwhelm
Not to be confused with 911, bapto. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change. When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mark 16:16. 'He that believes and is baptised shall be saved'. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989.
From what I understand, the large use of this koine Greek word was in immersion, as stated above.
Also, most Christological images we have of baptism (e.g., buried and resurrected with Him) involve a 'covering' or 'immersing', not a sprinkling.
Also, the tradition of the mikvah is worth considering, if tradition is brought to bear at all.
HOWEVER, I'll not make jokes about paedobaptism. I understand the evidence from the scriptures - I simply don't agree with it as it is applied to the new covenantal paradigm.
(battery running low - I'll have to come back tomorrow) | 
05-07-2008, 04:43 PM
|  | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Colorado Springs, CO - a little piece of heaven on earth!
Posts: 784
Thanks: 118
Thanked 103 Times in 59 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by jpechin Hi, guys,
Just browsing about, I found an interesting tidbit on Baptizo - Greek Lexicon, included with a lexical entry for the Greek word baptizo:
to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
to overwhelm
Not to be confused with 911, bapto. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change. When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. Mark 16:16. 'He that believes and is baptised shall be saved'. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle! Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989.
From what I understand, the large use of this koine Greek word was in immersion, as stated above.
Also, most Christological images we have of baptism (e.g., buried and resurrected with Him) involve a 'covering' or 'immersing', not a sprinkling.
Also, the tradition of the mikvah is worth considering, if tradition is brought to bear at all.
HOWEVER, I'll not make jokes about paedobaptism. I understand the evidence from the scriptures - I simply don't agree with it as it is applied to the new covenantal paradigm.
(battery running low - I'll have to come back tomorrow) | Hay:
Thanks for your input. However, most of your arguments have been anticipated in the Original Post. Some of which are worthy to go over again.
You point out "buried with him in baptism," as illustrative of what Baptism is all about. The problem with using this as a proof-text for submersion into water becomes apparent when you consider the "burial" of Jesus.
Jesus was wrapped in a linen cloth and placed in a tomb or sepulchre. How does plunging a person in water correspond at all with the "burial" of Jesus?
In modern times we think of "burial" the way Submersionists think of it - plunging someone into a hole in the ground. But, there is nothing in the gospels that even hints that this is how Jesus was "buried." The Submersionists view is a modern-day "interpretation" of the Scriptures that has no bearing on how Christ was "buried." The picture of "submersion" does not fit the reality of what happened to Christ.
Rev. Buchanan made an excellent point on another thread that addresses the "burial" argument well: Quote:
Definitely, baptism is symbolic of cleansing: i.e the washing of regeneration, Tit 3:5, for example.
I would make this one adjustment to the other point: baptism is not only symbolical of "burial with Christ" but also with "Christ put on" (like clothing), Gal.3:27; and "drinking the Spirit" 1 Cor.12:13.
The doctrine in view in all these "identifications" is that of Union with Christ. Paul's use of the burial metaphor is due to its connection to what follows, namely the resurrection. For us to be united to Christ, we are in the first place united to his Death to Sin, so that we might be "raised to newness of life" in Christ (the Firstborn from the Dead, Col 1:18). Note once again, the emphasis on union. Baptism is symbolic of the beginning of our Christian identification, the beginning or our union with Christ.
| And here, Quote: |
My point was, and continues to be, that for the immersionist to "lock in" on the Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12 texts--as if those two texts TAUGHT a mode by dint of an alleged "picture"--the same thing would have to be said concerning "wearing" and "drinking". Does the rite of baptism depict putting on clothes? Does it depict drinking? Why should we assume, then, that "burial" confirms some sort of picture? But clearly it must be symbolical of them all, and all at once.
| | |