Immersion?

Status
Not open for further replies.
[insert more Dr. Who theme music emoticon here]

Hi Calvin! My mighty Tardis did it's posting milliseconds before yours. And you are right about the If the Bible teaches that the Mode of Baptism is important stuff. But most of my views got worked out by the Bible and reading of the Church Fathers. They were discussing African Baptism's with the water shortages, and the Roman's that were hiding in the catacombs. The discussions (and hurled anathema's :p) were discussing the validity of the baptism's that didn't have enough water to Baptize by immersion, then sprinkling was allowed. Then the pouring out of the Holy Spirit theological reason started too!

[insert more Tardis sounds emoticon here]

Knock off the snide comments Grymir. If you cannot participate in a theological discussion without whining about how long it takes to read things then don't participate in them. :judge:
 
Hi Semper! I wasn't being snide, nor was I whining. I'm sorry if it came across that way. It's late at night and I was trying to liven things up a bit. I will be more careful.
 
Thanks. I just don't think your method of "livening things up" shows adequate respect to the work that somebody has done in trying to lay out an argument or present material. It has the feel of casting ridicule at it so please be mindful of that.
 
[insert more Dr. Who theme music emoticon here]

Hi Calvin! My mighty Tardis did it's posting milliseconds before yours. And you are right about the If the Bible teaches that the Mode of Baptism is important stuff. But most of my views got worked out by the Bible and reading of the Church Fathers. They were discussing African Baptism's with the water shortages, and the Roman's that were hiding in the catacombs. The discussions (and hurled anathema's :p) were discussing the validity of the baptism's that didn't have enough water to Baptize by immersion, then sprinkling was allowed. Then the pouring out of the Holy Spirit theological reason started too!

[insert more Tardis sounds emoticon here]

[insert the Matrix theme here]

There is not much I can say against the Church Fathers except that even the most Godly can be wrong. If you keep digging, then you will find that they also required men, women, virgins, children to be baptized naked without exception. They also universally accepted infant baptism.

I much prefer to argue the Bible only rathar than wrangle over lexicons and the statements of Church Fathers.

[insert Star Wars episode 4 ending music]
 
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 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?


Hi:

I think that Believer Baptist Only people will say that they come to their conclusion from their theology. That their theology comes from the Scriptures.

The problem is that they don't use the Bible only when they come to their theology. They use extra-biblical lexicons in order to define the word "Baptism," then they place the definition everywhere they can find the word.

The Reformed view in defining a word is called the Analogia Fidei. We are to search and see how the Scriptures use the word, and then form a definition from it. In doing so: one cannot find a clear use of the word "Baptism" literally anywhere in the Bible. In all of the clear uses of the term "Baptism" or its equivalent in the OT and NT pouring or sprinkling is mentioned. Not Immersion.

Grace and Peace,

-CH
 
O.K. I'm ready!! I finished planting a Mr. Lincoln rose, fresia's, and some zinnia's. My wife and I are cooking hamburgers and some freedom fries. Life is good today so far! Time to debate and discuss, which is what it says above. Which I like. It also says something about all others refrain, but I hope people will jump in with their two cents, because I like to hear good arguments and reasons for both side, no matter tough it sounds to liberals. (Oh why can't we just get along? They don't have any opinions worth taking seriously or fighting for.)

I have a few questions -

1. What does O.T. ritual washing have to do with baptism?

2. Jesus' baptism was not our baptism. His was to fulfill O.T. law. Jesus said that the Prophets and the law were untill John. (By the way, John dunked, not no hyssop)

3. Since the N.T. does talk about dunking, why is this not the norm.

The sprinkling and pouring started with the church when the water was scarce and/or they were in hiding in the catacombs. In which case sprinkling/pouring would be O.K. and justified. So shouldn't immersion be the best, and sprinkling/pouring be allowed if a dunking place is not availiable.

Anyway, let the great conversation begin. - Grymir :judge:

Re #1, Alot.
a) The book of Hebrews (ch9) calls these OT "ritual washings" "'baptisms". Any theory of the mode of baptism that does not (at least) permit sprinkling is therefore contrary to the clear teaching of scripture and is out of bounds.

b) Since these rituals are called "baptisms" in the NT, and are described repeatedly in the OT as by way of sprinkling, then sprinkling should be our *default* way to read baptism when we see it in the text, absent some compelling reason to read it otherwise. Say as "dunking".

Re #2, two seperate issues, the baptism of Jesus & Johns (mode of) baptism.
a) the baptism of Jesus was to keep the law (i.e. fulfill righteousness). Question what law was he fulfilling? Answer, one of the three (!) baptisms of the High Priest. The baptism with oil, is the holy Spirit as a dove. The baptism with blood of the sacrifice was himself on the cross. The baptism with water is, if not here by John, then NOT RECORDED IN THE NT!! Impossible! John as a high priest was baptising Jesus the final high priest.

b) Johns mode. Since John is a high priest he DID know all of the OT baptisms. Since NOT ONE of those baptisms are by dunking then John would have been an innovator, and subject to stoning for adding to the law of Moses (if he dunked). John was examined by a committee who found no fault with his practice. ERGO John was baptising in the prescribed OT
method.

c) Johns baptism was a named OT baptism that is described for us in the OT. And yes it did use Hysop! The baptism of repentance was a sin offering baptism. This baptism is water (mixed with blood or soot) sprinkled on the bringer of the sacrifice. re-read the levitical sin offering laws, then the synoptic accounts of Johns baptism, then read Mal ch 4, Ezk 36, and Is 40.

NB especially that John baptised with the Clean water of the messianic age, not the dirty water of the OT (mixed with blood & soot). Also see what offering John told those seeking forgivness of sins to bring, not lambs but repentance!

Re #3, This is an unproven assumption! I would argue that on the contrary, the NT speaks repeatedly about named (non-christian, or rather pre-christian) baptisms that are described (elsewhere) in exhaustive detail as by means of sprinkling. Since all scripture is to interpreted in light of other passages, then you have a very high burden of proof to meet if you want to challenge the *scriptural* mode of baptism.
 
Hey:

Mayflower posted a rather detailed, and lenghty, thread that sought to prove that Immersion was the only way to define the Biblical words related to "Baptism." He has done a monumental job in advancing the cause of Sprinkling as the only Biblical means by which the Sacrament should be practiced.

Why? You may ask? Immersionists pay attention here.

Immersionists pride themselves on being "Biblical." They even have a joke they pass around about a Baptist going to a Presbyterian book table, and not being able to find a Bible on it. I think they make these jokes because there is no Biblical evidence of an Immersion ever taking place.

Their method of argumentation does not start and end with the Bible, but, like Mayflower has shown, they begin with lexicons, quotations from church fathers, pagan sources, and even paedo-baptists who all agree that the literal definition of "baptize" is to plunge, or immerse.

Consequently, they stand outside of the Bible, find a definition that suits their needs, then they thrust their definition into the Bible at every point they can find. I think Pilgrim's response to this was most appropriate:

So much for sola scriptura, eh?

If I was a Baptist, and I have prided myself about how "Biblical" my views are in light of the "Romish" paedo-baptists, then I would have been embarrassed by Mayflower's post, and repudiate him for his non-Biblical arguments.

In every argument the Immersionist makes he first turns to Greek scholars - both pagans and Christians - church historians, and paedo-baptists who acknowledge the literal definition of the word. They then take this literal definition of the word and apply it to every instance where "Baptism" is found.

If we take the Bible alone, then we find that there is no clear case of Immersion to be found in any of the passages where "Baptism" is referred. The Reformed view of defining a word in the Bible is seeing how the Bible uses it - not how Aristotle may have thought it meant.

The Immersionists has to take his "outside of the Bible" definition, and then cram it into a place where it doesn't belong.

How does the meaning "to dip" fit here:

And when they come from the market, except they baptize they eat not. And many other things they have received to hold, as the baptizing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables, Mark 7:4.

Are the Pharisees Immersing themselves every time before they eat? Do they immerse the cups and pots, brasen vessels as well? The washing of these things is more likely to have been done by pouring water upon it.

What is more remarkable are the tables. Do you honestly think that the Jews carried their tables to a lake or river and fully immersed them every time before they ate? Isn't it more likely that they sprinkled or poured water on the tables, and then washed them with a clean rag?

In these instances the "water" of baptism is being applied to the articles in question. The things are not being applied to the water. The Scriptural mode of Baptism is when the water is applied to the subject, not the subject to the water. This is not only proven here, but in all instances where Baptism occurs.

Buried with Him in Baptism?

After showing from their lexicons that Baptism can only be defined as "dipping" they turn to two passages in Scripture that seem to justify their definition, Rom. 6:4, Col. 2:12. It is on the strength of these two passages that Immersionists claim another argument for their views of Baptism. They say something to the effect:

"Baptism is commemorative of the Burial and Resurrection of Jesus."

Plunging the subject into the water is commemorative of the burial of Jesus, and pulling him/her out of his resurrection.

First, none of the Gospels mention that Jesus was literally buried. The only places where Jesus was said to be "buried" is the above two passages. This seems to indicate that Paul is not talking about a literal burial, but of a figurative one - our sins are buried by our union with Christ.

Second, Immersion is not at all similar to the "burial" of Christ. Jesus was wrapped in a linen cloth and laid in a tomb or sepulchre. They did not dig a six foot hole and "plunge" him in the earth, and then He rose again from the ground. Reading the Gospel accounts how can anyone think that Jesus was "plunged"?

Third, the burial of Jesus has nothing to do with His atoning work - it is His death. They could just as easily left his body hanging for three days, and He still would have been resurrected. Or, they could have placed His body in the Upper Room, and sealed it, and He still would have rose three days later. The mode of His burial has no theological significance whatsoever.

"Buried with him in Baptism" means that we are united to Christ through His death. Paul is using the word "buried" figuratively of the death of Christ. He is certainly not using the term literally meaning that the literal burial of Christ had something to do with our salvation. If such would be the case, then it was not the work of Christ alone that saves us, because it took the work of men to bury Christ (Joseph of Arimathaea and his servants, Mark 15:42-47).

Finally, we already have a rite that commemorates the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ - The Christian Sabbath.

The Baptism of Jesus and the Eunuch.

Jesus was Baptized by John in the river Jordan. In examing all of the records of Jesus' Baptism I fail to see the idea of an immersion. They refer to Jesus going "into" the water, and coming out of it.

But did not John go "into" the water as well. Yet, John was not baptized as well at the same time? One can go "into" the river Jordan, but not go "under" it. The words of Jesus tell us that He did not go "under" the water, but was sprinkled.

First, Jesus Christ - the Second Adam - the God/Man - did not need to be washed either ceremonially or spiritually of any uncleanness. John the Baptist acknowledged this when he tries to forbid Jesus Baptism, Mat. 3:14.

Second, Jesus Christ - the Great High Priest - the Messiah - the One who came to fulfill the Law in all righteousness - said He had to be Baptized as a means of fulfilling all righteousness. This can only mean that there is a law in the Old Testament that required the rite of Baptism on Priests.

Third, there is such a law found in Numbers 8:5-7:

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them. And thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean.

It is clear that John did not Baptize Jesus by Immersion, but was following the Law and sprinkled Jesus according to it. What is also clear is that John saw the Holy Spirit "descending" upon Jesus afterward. Jesus was not "plunged into" the Holy Spirit.

Baptism does not commemorate the burial and resurrection of Jesus, but the "washing and renewing" of the Holy Spirit. It represents the Work of the Holy Spirit. And the Bible always represents the Spirit of God as "descending" or being "poured" upon men and women. Thus, "sprnkling" or "pouring" water upon the subject is the only Scriptural mode of Baptism.

As far as the Eunuch is concerned the Bible says that both the Ethiopian and Philip "went into the water," and that they both went up out of it. I think it very unlikely that Philip was Immersed with the Ethiopian.

That pouring or sprinkling are representative of the Work of the Holy Spirit I will leave that to my brother paedo-baptists to prove.

Using lexicons and quotations is not the same thing as using the Bible alone.

Blessings,

-CH

If you want to get technical, Baptists do not practice immersion, they practice submersion. If you put the entire person under water that is not immersion, but submersion. If you dip them or put part of the body in water that is immersion. This may sound like semantics, but as a former anti-paedo-Baptist, I saw so much of this kind of nit-pickiness.
 
Hey:

Mayflower posted a rather detailed, and lenghty, thread that sought to prove that Immersion was the only way to define the Biblical words related to "Baptism." He has done a monumental job in advancing the cause of Sprinkling as the only Biblical means by which the Sacrament should be practiced.

Why? You may ask? Immersionists pay attention here.

Immersionists pride themselves on being "Biblical." They even have a joke they pass around about a Baptist going to a Presbyterian book table, and not being able to find a Bible on it. I think they make these jokes because there is no Biblical evidence of an Immersion ever taking place.

Their method of argumentation does not start and end with the Bible, but, like Mayflower has shown, they begin with lexicons, quotations from church fathers, pagan sources, and even paedo-baptists who all agree that the literal definition of "baptize" is to plunge, or immerse.

Consequently, they stand outside of the Bible, find a definition that suits their needs, then they thrust their definition into the Bible at every point they can find. I think Pilgrim's response to this was most appropriate:

So much for sola scriptura, eh?

If I was a Baptist, and I have prided myself about how "Biblical" my views are in light of the "Romish" paedo-baptists, then I would have been embarrassed by Mayflower's post, and repudiate him for his non-Biblical arguments.

In every argument the Immersionist makes he first turns to Greek scholars - both pagans and Christians - church historians, and paedo-baptists who acknowledge the literal definition of the word. They then take this literal definition of the word and apply it to every instance where "Baptism" is found.

If we take the Bible alone, then we find that there is no clear case of Immersion to be found in any of the passages where "Baptism" is referred. The Reformed view of defining a word in the Bible is seeing how the Bible uses it - not how Aristotle may have thought it meant.

The Immersionists has to take his "outside of the Bible" definition, and then cram it into a place where it doesn't belong.

How does the meaning "to dip" fit here:

And when they come from the market, except they baptize they eat not. And many other things they have received to hold, as the baptizing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables, Mark 7:4.

Are the Pharisees Immersing themselves every time before they eat? Do they immerse the cups and pots, brasen vessels as well? The washing of these things is more likely to have been done by pouring water upon it.

What is more remarkable are the tables. Do you honestly think that the Jews carried their tables to a lake or river and fully immersed them every time before they ate? Isn't it more likely that they sprinkled or poured water on the tables, and then washed them with a clean rag?

In these instances the "water" of baptism is being applied to the articles in question. The things are not being applied to the water. The Scriptural mode of Baptism is when the water is applied to the subject, not the subject to the water. This is not only proven here, but in all instances where Baptism occurs.

Buried with Him in Baptism?

After showing from their lexicons that Baptism can only be defined as "dipping" they turn to two passages in Scripture that seem to justify their definition, Rom. 6:4, Col. 2:12. It is on the strength of these two passages that Immersionists claim another argument for their views of Baptism. They say something to the effect:

"Baptism is commemorative of the Burial and Resurrection of Jesus."

Plunging the subject into the water is commemorative of the burial of Jesus, and pulling him/her out of his resurrection.

First, none of the Gospels mention that Jesus was literally buried. The only places where Jesus was said to be "buried" is the above two passages. This seems to indicate that Paul is not talking about a literal burial, but of a figurative one - our sins are buried by our union with Christ.

Second, Immersion is not at all similar to the "burial" of Christ. Jesus was wrapped in a linen cloth and laid in a tomb or sepulchre. They did not dig a six foot hole and "plunge" him in the earth, and then He rose again from the ground. Reading the Gospel accounts how can anyone think that Jesus was "plunged"?

Third, the burial of Jesus has nothing to do with His atoning work - it is His death. They could just as easily left his body hanging for three days, and He still would have been resurrected. Or, they could have placed His body in the Upper Room, and sealed it, and He still would have rose three days later. The mode of His burial has no theological significance whatsoever.

"Buried with him in Baptism" means that we are united to Christ through His death. Paul is using the word "buried" figuratively of the death of Christ. He is certainly not using the term literally meaning that the literal burial of Christ had something to do with our salvation. If such would be the case, then it was not the work of Christ alone that saves us, because it took the work of men to bury Christ (Joseph of Arimathaea and his servants, Mark 15:42-47).

Finally, we already have a rite that commemorates the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ - The Christian Sabbath.

The Baptism of Jesus and the Eunuch.

Jesus was Baptized by John in the river Jordan. In examing all of the records of Jesus' Baptism I fail to see the idea of an immersion. They refer to Jesus going "into" the water, and coming out of it.

But did not John go "into" the water as well. Yet, John was not baptized as well at the same time? One can go "into" the river Jordan, but not go "under" it. The words of Jesus tell us that He did not go "under" the water, but was sprinkled.

First, Jesus Christ - the Second Adam - the God/Man - did not need to be washed either ceremonially or spiritually of any uncleanness. John the Baptist acknowledged this when he tries to forbid Jesus Baptism, Mat. 3:14.

Second, Jesus Christ - the Great High Priest - the Messiah - the One who came to fulfill the Law in all righteousness - said He had to be Baptized as a means of fulfilling all righteousness. This can only mean that there is a law in the Old Testament that required the rite of Baptism on Priests.

Third, there is such a law found in Numbers 8:5-7:

And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them. And thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean.

It is clear that John did not Baptize Jesus by Immersion, but was following the Law and sprinkled Jesus according to it. What is also clear is that John saw the Holy Spirit "descending" upon Jesus afterward. Jesus was not "plunged into" the Holy Spirit.

Baptism does not commemorate the burial and resurrection of Jesus, but the "washing and renewing" of the Holy Spirit. It represents the Work of the Holy Spirit. And the Bible always represents the Spirit of God as "descending" or being "poured" upon men and women. Thus, "sprnkling" or "pouring" water upon the subject is the only Scriptural mode of Baptism.

As far as the Eunuch is concerned the Bible says that both the Ethiopian and Philip "went into the water," and that they both went up out of it. I think it very unlikely that Philip was Immersed with the Ethiopian.

That pouring or sprinkling are representative of the Work of the Holy Spirit I will leave that to my brother paedo-baptists to prove.

Using lexicons and quotations is not the same thing as using the Bible alone.

Blessings,

-CH

Thanks, brother for your well thought out position. This is the classic Presbyterian position on the mode of Baptism. The sprinkling or pouring of water does convey the outpouring of the Spirit. When the Scriptures state, they went down into the water, it indicates an incline down to a body of water, not the submersion of the candidate and the one administering the sacrament. How could you submerse 3000 souls in one day? Did they all submerse themselves?
 
O.K. I'm ready!! I finished planting a Mr. Lincoln rose, fresia's, and some zinnia's. My wife and I are cooking hamburgers and some freedom fries. Life is good today so far! Time to debate and discuss, which is what it says above. Which I like. It also says something about all others refrain, but I hope people will jump in with their two cents, because I like to hear good arguments and reasons for both side, no matter tough it sounds to liberals. (Oh why can't we just get along? They don't have any opinions worth taking seriously or fighting for.)

I have a few questions -

1. What does O.T. ritual washing have to do with baptism?

2. Jesus' baptism was not our baptism. His was to fulfill O.T. law. Jesus said that the Prophets and the law were untill John. (By the way, John dunked, not no hyssop)

3. Since the N.T. does talk about dunking, why is this not the norm.

The sprinkling and pouring started with the church when the water was scarce and/or they were in hiding in the catacombs. In which case sprinkling/pouring would be O.K. and justified. So shouldn't immersion be the best, and sprinkling/pouring be allowed if a dunking place is not availiable.

Anyway, let the great conversation begin. - Grymir :judge:

Re #1, Alot.
a) The book of Hebrews (ch9) calls these OT "ritual washings" "'baptisms". Any theory of the mode of baptism that does not (at least) permit sprinkling is therefore contrary to the clear teaching of scripture and is out of bounds.

b) Since these rituals are called "baptisms" in the NT, and are described repeatedly in the OT as by way of sprinkling, then sprinkling should be our *default* way to read baptism when we see it in the text, absent some compelling reason to read it otherwise. Say as "dunking".

Re #2, two seperate issues, the baptism of Jesus & Johns (mode of) baptism.
a) the baptism of Jesus was to keep the law (i.e. fulfill righteousness). Question what law was he fulfilling? Answer, one of the three (!) baptisms of the High Priest. The baptism with oil, is the holy Spirit as a dove. The baptism with blood of the sacrifice was himself on the cross. The baptism with water is, if not here by John, then NOT RECORDED IN THE NT!! Impossible! John as a high priest was baptising Jesus the final high priest.

b) Johns mode. Since John is a high priest he DID know all of the OT baptisms. Since NOT ONE of those baptisms are by dunking then John would have been an innovator, and subject to stoning for adding to the law of Moses (if he dunked). John was examined by a committee who found no fault with his practice. ERGO John was baptising in the prescribed OT
method.

c) Johns baptism was a named OT baptism that is described for us in the OT. And yes it did use Hysop! The baptism of repentance was a sin offering baptism. This baptism is water (mixed with blood or soot) sprinkled on the bringer of the sacrifice. re-read the levitical sin offering laws, then the synoptic accounts of Johns baptism, then read Mal ch 4, Ezk 36, and Is 40.

NB especially that John baptised with the Clean water of the messianic age, not the dirty water of the OT (mixed with blood & soot). Also see what offering John told those seeking forgivness of sins to bring, not lambs but repentance!

Re #3, This is an unproven assumption! I would argue that on the contrary, the NT speaks repeatedly about named (non-christian, or rather pre-christian) baptisms that are described (elsewhere) in exhaustive detail as by means of sprinkling. Since all scripture is to interpreted in light of other passages, then you have a very high burden of proof to meet if you want to challenge the *scriptural* mode of baptism.

Thanks, Kevin. These arguments for the mode of baptism, that Presbyterians believe, are often overlooked in this discussion. Unfortunetly even some in the PCA have abandoned the classic position for the "personal prefence of the candidate."
 
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
 
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, In my humble opinion.
 
Last edited:
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. :up: 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.
 
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.
 
Thanks pastor Kok. I was trying to point out that washings=baptisings and wrote from memory. Mea culpa.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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! :p
 
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 In my humble opinion.
 
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.
 
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 κα’Ι 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.
 
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.
 
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)
 
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:

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,
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.
I am glad to see that you are tentative about the "tradition" concerning the Mikvah. It does not apply for several reasons:

1) Circumcision was the Sign of the Everlasting Covenant that was given to Abraham, Gen. 17:13.

2) The ceremonial washings known as the "Mikvah" came under the Mosaic dispensation of which Jeremiah tells us passed away under the New Covenant, Jer. 31:32. Paul points out that it was the Levitical law that has been abolished in the New Covenant not the Moral Law, Heb. 8:7-10:18.

3) The Hebrew word for these ceremonial washings is rawchats (Strongs 7364) and is translated in the LXX as louo (Strongs 3068) which is the literal translation, "to bathe." These were not considered "baptisms."

What now do you have left? Various definitions of the word "baptism" from pagan sources? Hmmmmm.

Grace and Peace,

-CH
 
Last edited:
What about Paul's Baptism?

Sorry, didn't want to wade through all of the technicalities in this thread, but why has someone not mentioned the baptism of Paul?

While we can talk about 'baptizo' until we are blue in the face (and James Dale did over 140 years ago in his three volume set on Baptizo, of which the third volume, Johannine Baptism, is probably the most convincing volume), but an examination of the actual baptismal events, especially Paul's, are most enlightening.

Look at the context of Paul's baptism in Acts 9. In verses 8-9, he is three days without food, water, or sight.

In verses 10-16, the Lord tells Ananias to go to the house of Judas and lay his hands on Paul.

In verse 17, and this is key, Ananias enters the HOUSE. He lays his hands on Paul, he receives his sight, and Paul STOOD UP and was immediately baptized.

Questions for immersionists:

1. Since when did the houses in AD 33 in Damascus (located in a desert region) have baptistries in them? Where would a large enough body of water exist in the home to allow Paul to be baptized? This was not a governor's mansion, where a possible indoor pool might have existed. So, they probably had a small or large vase of water, from which the water was extracted to baptize Paul.

2. Paul took food and water and was strengthened, after the baptism.
Before that, he STOOD UP, and was baptized (verse 18). How could this have been an immersion? Paul was in no condition to go out and find a river to be baptized in because of his weakness.

Again, this is a difficult passage by which to demonstrate an immersion. Obviously, sprinkling or pouring would not be a problem here, but I have yet to hear an adequate explanation from the immersionist position.
 
Sorry, didn't want to wade through all of the technicalities in this thread, but why has someone not mentioned the baptism of Paul?

While we can talk about 'baptizo' until we are blue in the face (and James Dale did over 140 years ago in his three volume set on Baptizo, of which the third volume, Johannine Baptism, is probably the most convincing volume), but an examination of the actual baptismal events, especially Paul's, are most enlightening.

Look at the context of Paul's baptism in Acts 9. In verses 8-9, he is three days without food, water, or sight.

In verses 10-16, the Lord tells Ananias to go to the house of Judas and lay his hands on Paul.

In verse 17, and this is key, Ananias enters the HOUSE. He lays his hands on Paul, he receives his sight, and Paul STOOD UP and was immediately baptized.

Questions for immersionists:

1. Since when did the houses in AD 33 in Damascus (located in a desert region) have baptistries in them? Where would a large enough body of water exist in the home to allow Paul to be baptized? This was not a governor's mansion, where a possible indoor pool might have existed. So, they probably had a small or large vase of water, from which the water was extracted to baptize Paul.

2. Paul took food and water and was strengthened, after the baptism.
Before that, he STOOD UP, and was baptized (verse 18). How could this have been an immersion? Paul was in no condition to go out and find a river to be baptized in because of his weakness.

Again, this is a difficult passage by which to demonstrate an immersion. Obviously, sprinkling or pouring would not be a problem here, but I have yet to hear an adequate explanation from the immersionist position.

Randy,

Let me quote the passage in question.

Acts 9:18-19 8 And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized; 19 and he took food and was strengthened. Now for several days he was with the disciples who were at Damascus,
The immediacy of his baptism is not addressed. Was it thirty seconds after he regained his sight? Five minutes? Thirty minutes? The time is not specified. Baptisms were performed in natural bodies of water (c.f. Acts 8:38 & Matthew 3:6). I am sure Damascus had such bodies of water.

Paul was in no condition to go out and find a river to be baptized in because of his weakness.
That is sheer conjecture. Nowhere are we told that Paul lacked the energy to walk. Who knows what he was capable of in the power of the Holy Spirit at that moment.

I have yet to hear an adequate explanation from the immersionist position
Could it be that your presupposition is so strong that you can't possibly listen to anything else?

:think:
 
he he he he

I think he's baiting you, Bill. "Stood up."

You could say something back, like "They went DOWN, DOWN, DOWN into the water! Acts 8:38, proof of immersion!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top