Does Acts 8:37 proves adult baptism by immersion

[Javilo]

Act 8:34-38 doesn't make sense without verse 37 where the Eunuch states
his belief in Christ. Remove verse 37 and what is he being baptized for?
Don't understand why this verse is in dispute. So here in verse 37, we have
the definitive proof text for adult baptism by immersion. Probably removed
by those who want to justify infant baptism.

 

[Marrow Man]

Actually, Joe, two of the earliest references we have for Acts 8:37 come from the Early Church Fathers Irenaeus and Cyprian, both of whom were advocates of infant baptism. The verse is missing from Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, p45, and the Vulgate. It is not included in the Majority Text. It is found in the TR, hence its inclusion in the KJV of the Bible.

I would add, as a side note, that both Erasmus and the KJV translators also held to infant baptism.

 

[ChristianHedonist]

I'm not sure what the dispute is over Acts 8:37; I would guess that it doesn't show up in earlier or more reliable manuscripts. However, even if verse 37 should be included, it would not prove baptism for adult believers only. Those of us who believe in infant baptism also believe in baptizing formerly unbaptized adults upon (and only upon) a profession of faith in Christ. I also don't see how this passage necessarily demonstrates an immersion. Philip and the Ethiopian both went down to and came up from the water, and I don't imagine Philip would have immersed himself with the Ethiopian when baptizing him. However, if it does demonstrate an immersion, it does not refute other modes, it only demonstrates that immersion is an acceptable mode, as any paedobaptist would agree. This passage only supports the baptism of adults upon profession; it does not refute the baptism of the children of believers, nor does it demonstrate that adults alone should be baptized.

 

[sotzo]

1. Yes, he is being baptized for his belief in Christ which to that point he did not have. How does that dispute infant baptism? He's not an infant and he's not a member of a believing household, so he's baptized upon being received into the covenant community as a believer. Again, how does this argue against infant baptism?

2. And where is immersion in the text? If you are referring to "up out of the water" you are reading immersion into the text. "Up out of the water" in the Greek text means they left the water....like saying "they came up out of the land"....doesn't mean they were under the land and are now above it....rather, they were once in it and are now out of it. Immersion has to be read into the text to see it there.

3. Yikes on the comment about the verse being removed by those wanting to justify infant baptism. Burden of proof is on you to show that.

Brother, we paedos take our Biblical understanding of baptism quite seriously...not saying credos don't...paedo-baptism goes all the way back to circumcision, rooted in that convenant with Abraham. Are you sure you understand the biblical foundation that we paedos hold? Reason I ask is your post doesn't seem to take any of that foundation into account.

 

[Javilo]

Acts 8:37 is an example of adult baptism by immersion that is in the Bible
(sola scriptura). There is no parallel example of infant baptism anywhere in
the new testament. Circumcision was part of the old covenant. Baptism of
Christian believers is under the new covenant which Jesus came to
establish. (1 Cor 11:25)

 

[ChristianHedonist]

Acts 8:37 is an example of adult baptism by immersion that is in the Bible
(sola scriptura). There is no parallel example of infant baptism anywhere in
the new testament. Circumcision was part of the old covenant. Baptism of
Christian believers is under the new covenant which Jesus came to
establish. (1 Cor 11:25)

I'm curious as to how you deduce immersion from this passage.

 

[toddpedlar]

Act 8:34-38 doesn't make sense without verse 37 where the Eunuch states
his belief in Christ. Remove verse 37 and what is he being baptized for?
Don't understand why this verse is in dispute. So here in verse 37, we have
the definitive proof text for adult baptism by immersion. Probably removed
by those who want to justify infant baptism.

It's already been said by others, but this example doesn't prove anything except that the eunuch was baptized as a convert. It has nothing to do whatsoever with infant baptism, neither proving nor disproving its validity. You should know that paedobaptists fully support the baptism of converts on their profession of faith just like credobaptists do. The baptism of the eunuch is a perfectly reasonable and correct baptism in a paedobaptist context.

 

[Jimmy the Greek]

I don't understand this OP from one who claims in his profile to hold to the WCF, which endorses infant baptism. Are you just stirring the pot? It's not as if thorough credo vs. paedo discussions have been lacking on this board.

For what it's worth, I'm a credo-baptist and don't see any substance in your argument from Acts 8:37.

 

[Javilo]

Dan, "they came UP out of the water"
The word up, demonstrates immersion best rather than
sprinkling or pouring.

 

[Marrow Man]

Dan, "they came UP out of the water"
The word up, demonstrates immersion best rather than
sprinkling or pouring.

If so, that would indicate Philip baptized both himself and the eunuch, since both ["they"] came up.

 

[sotzo]

Acts 8:37 is an example of adult baptism by immersion that is in the Bible
(sola scriptura). There is no parallel example of infant baptism anywhere in
the new testament. Circumcision was part of the old covenant. Baptism of
Christian believers is under the new covenant which Jesus came to
establish. (1 Cor 11:25)

At this point, I think you should spend some time browsing the PB on this issue. Most folks here that are helpful on both sides of this debate really try to understand the paedo and credo views prior to diving in.

I think you'll find that your proof texting method would end up reducing the doctrine of the Trinity to modalism since there isn't a passage that specifically says "Now hear this...God is one in substance, three in person". Yet I doubt you deny the Trinity. Take some time to understand the paedo view and associated exegesis, then I think you'll find the discussion you're looking for.

Welcome!

 

[larryjf]

Act 8:34-38 doesn't make sense without verse 37 where the Eunuch states
his belief in Christ. Remove verse 37 and what is he being baptized for?
Don't understand why this verse is in dispute. So here in verse 37, we have
the definitive proof text for adult baptism by immersion. Probably removed
by those who want to justify infant baptism.

First, it has nothing to do with infant baptism since in the Orthodox Church they baptize infants by immersion.

Second, it only shows that immersion is "a" valid way to baptize, it doesn't prove that immersion is the "only" way to baptize.

 

[ChristianHedonist]

Dan, "they came UP out of the water"
The word up, demonstrates immersion best rather than
sprinkling or pouring.

When I read "they came up out of the water," I can't take that alone to mean immersion, because, as has already been mentioned, Philip would also have been immersed with the Ethiopian. Rather, I understand it to mean that they both walked down into the water together (however shallow or deep it was, it could have been a small ankle deep stream for all I know), Philip baptized him somehow, either by scooping up water and sprinkling/pouring it on him, or possibly immersing him (if the water happened to be deep enough), and then they both walked up together from the water up to the road. Thus, I don't think that the phrase "they came up out of the water" even refers to the actual baptism, but rather to them walking out of the water and up to the road after Philip had baptized the Ethiopian.

 

[toddpedlar]

Dan, "they came UP out of the water"
The word up, demonstrates immersion best rather than
sprinkling or pouring.

Immersion is only demonstrated if you assume that baptizo means immersion only. The fact that BOTH came UP implies, it seems, that they had to go DOWN in order to get to the water - probably a streambed given where they were. They both went down to the water, Philip baptized the eunuch, and both came up from the water. No requirement of immersion there, at least from the grammar used - a requirement only comes from your presuppositions about the verb.

 

[Marrow Man]

When I read "they came up out of the water," I can't take that alone to mean immersion, because, as has already been mentioned, Philip would also have been immersed with the Ethiopian. Rather, I understand it to mean that they both walked down into the water together (however shallow or deep it was, it could have been a small ankle deep stream for all I know), Philip baptized him somehow, either by scooping up water and sprinkling/pouring it on him, or possibly immersing him (if the water happened to be deep enough), and then they both walked up together from the water up to the road. Thus, I don't think that the phrase "they came up out of the water" even refers to the actual baptism, but rather to them walking out of the water and up to the road after Philip had baptized the Ethiopian.

Well said.

As a side note (with regard to the amount of water), it should probably be noted that all of this took place on a desert road (according to v. 26) and the expression from the eunuch in v. 36 appears to be an exclamation, indicating that he was surprised to find any water at all (they find "some water" or "certain water", with nothing really being said about the quantity).

 

[CDM]

Dan, "they came UP out of the water"
The word up, demonstrates immersion best rather than
sprinkling or pouring.

When I read "they came up out of the water," I can't take that alone to mean immersion, because, as has already been mentioned, Philip would also have been immersed with the Ethiopian. Rather, I understand it to mean that they both walked down into the water together (however shallow or deep it was, it could have been a small ankle deep stream for all I know), Philip baptized him somehow, either by scooping up water and sprinkling/pouring it on him, or possibly immersing him (if the water happened to be deep enough), and then they both walked up together from the water up to the road. Thus, I don't think that the phrase "they came up out of the water" even refers to the actual baptism, but rather to them walking out of the water and up to the road after Philip had baptized the Ethiopian.

Your only choices are these:

1. If you believe, as you posted earlier, this is referring to immersion then you have to believe that Phillip dunked himself with the Ethiopian. There is no escaping it.

2. "they came up out of the water" refers to the two leaving the water...like walking up a bank to a road as mentioned earlier.

Which is it?

 

[Davidius]

 

[Iconoclast]

Act 8:34-38 doesn't make sense without verse 37 where the Eunuch states
his belief in Christ. Remove verse 37 and what is he being baptized for?
Don't understand why this verse is in dispute. So here in verse 37, we have
the definitive proof text for adult baptism by immersion. Probably removed
by those who want to justify infant baptism.

An adult baptism took place. He believed and was baptized. No one section of scripture is enough to "prove" any doctrine concerning baptism, it's subjects,meaning, or mode.
Take a look at some of the older threads on baptism and you will see where this discussion goes. Try to understand accurately why they teach baptism as a covenant sign ,then you will see why they respond as they have to your post

 

[DMcFadden]

Joseph,

If I have not welcomed you before, hello!

I am a credo baptist with 53 of my 55 years in Baptist churches, 30 of them as an ordained Baptist minister. However, I think that the comments by our brethren here are on target with respect to the Ethiopian. It really proves nothing either way since our paedo friends believe in the baptism of converts just as we do.

This board is replete with baptism debates, threading their way through the years. Use your search function and pick up some of the back and forth on both sides. Incidentally, my first three degrees were in Bible, theology, and ministry. Yet, baptism was sort of passed over with a light touch. I had not given serious consideration to the arguments for paedo baptism until this year myself. You will probably find them immensely more convincing than you ever thought possible.

Here are a couple of resources that might give you more sympathy for our paedo brethren.

Marcel, Pierre, Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism
Murray, John, Christian Baptism
Robertson, O. Palmer, Christ of the Covenants
Strawbridge, Greg, The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism

I recently finished listening to the White/Shisko debate on baptism. Again, remember that as a credo, I knew the outline of the arguments on both sides but never engaged in thinking about them much (most Protestant evangelicals are reflexively credo, it dovetails nicely with American notions of voluntarism and democracy). BTW, if you listen to it, skip the free version on Monergism (it is missing 25 minutes of crucial material) and fork out the $4.50 for the whole thing on White's web site.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Dan, "they came UP out of the water"
The word up, demonstrates immersion best rather than
sprinkling or pouring.

When I read "they came up out of the water," I can't take that alone to mean immersion, because, as has already been mentioned, Philip would also have been immersed with the Ethiopian. Rather, I understand it to mean that they both walked down into the water together (however shallow or deep it was, it could have been a small ankle deep stream for all I know), Philip baptized him somehow, either by scooping up water and sprinkling/pouring it on him, or possibly immersing him (if the water happened to be deep enough), and then they both walked up together from the water up to the road. Thus, I don't think that the phrase "they came up out of the water" even refers to the actual baptism, but rather to them walking out of the water and up to the road after Philip had baptized the Ethiopian.

Your only choices are these:

1. If you believe, as you posted earlier, this is referring to immersion then you have to believe that Phillip dunked himself with the Ethiopian. There is no escaping it.

2. "they came up out of the water" refers to the two leaving the water...like walking up a bank to a road as mentioned earlier.

Which is it?

3. Philip fell into the water while immersing the Eunuch.

 

[Seb]

3. Philip fell into the water while immersing the Eunuch.

Now THAT'S thinking outside the box!