Baptism and communion

[Perrero]

I thought I would reply in order to bring some light on the subject.
Let's begin with Paul's statement in Hebrews 6:1-3

"Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, 2 of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. 3 And this we will do if God permits. "

Here Paul states that when it comes the Doctrine of Baptisms we should have this subject well under our belt (understood and settled) so that we can move on to deeper and more mature teachings. The different doctrines or subjects that he lists are by his standards infantile not because they are insignificant but because they are puerile and simplistic.

So let's settle the issue of the Doctrine of Baptisms once and for all move on to greater things that He is so willing to share with us.

Notice that Paul talks about Baptisms in the plural sense. That is because there are many types of Baptisms.
I will list the 4 most common Baptisms known by the majority of Christians.
1) Baptism of John the Baptist
2) Baptism in water
3) Baptism of Jesus
4) Baptism of the Holy Spirit

Now, how do these differ one from the other? Here's the breakdown

Baptizer ---------------------------Baptizee-------------------------Medium --------------------Type
John the Baptist Anyone willing Water Repentance (Now Obsolete)
Believers New Converts Water Public declaration of faith
Jesus Christian believers Holy Ghost and Fire Greater power and Authority
Holy Spirit New Converts The Body of Christ Official induction into the Family of God
Having established these Baptisms which one would you say is the most important? Because Paul does teach in Ephesians 4:4-6 that

"There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

Note here

_One Body
[--**One Spirit
[ One Hope
[ One Lord
[ One Faith
[--**One Baptism
One God & Father

And so the most important Baptism is the Baptism of the Spirit spoken of in 1Corinthians (12:13-14)

"For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit. 14 For in fact the body is not one member but many."

This is the only Baptism that was needed and could be performed for the thief on the cross.
His total change of heart from a cursing mocker of Jesus to a believing observer of the Messiah's love and compassion for a condemning crowd convinced him to reach out in supplication at the one he only saw could save him. In doing so, he gained Paradise, without water immersion, synagogue attendance, communion remembrance or any other ritual whether biblical or religious.
By ONE FAITH in the ONE LORD, he received the ONE BAPTISM of the ONE SPIRIT giving him the ONE HOPE promised by the ONE FATHER.

 

[mikeforjesus]

I do not mind when you are JUDGDING ME when 1 Cor 5:1-2 and also 1 Cor 6:1-6 and we are to JUDGE , SORRY !!

dan p

We are to judge but not speak for God as though what we say we know if it could not be right that we don’t know. But we should teach that people keep all His word as we must not add or take away and leave judgement to Him and I do believe it could be possible water baptism should be done incase was commanded and there is risk for one to die while he is not seeking to do or repent of not obeying Him if one can’t.

 

[Dan Perez]

The baptism that brings about our reception of salvation is an act that man must DO (Mark 16:16, Matt 28:19, Acts 22:16). This cannot be Spirit baptism, because man cannot make the Spirit baptize anyone. That means, as 1 Pet 3:21 so clearly and directly states, that it is water baptism that is in reference in Col 2:11-14 and Rom 6:1-4 where we are told that the Spirit takes action during baptism to remove our sins and unite us with Jesus' death and resurrection. This is not just a symbolic ritual, but the point in time at which the Spirit takes action to save us through the power of Jesus' death on the cross, His spilled blood, and His resurrection that defeated death.

Most never check the Greek text on 1 Peter 3:21 says The like figure whereunto BAPTISMA which speaks of the HOLY SPIRIT and NOT WATER BAPTISM // BAPTIZO , and check to see by using BLUE LETTER BIBLE and check it out !!
dan p

 

[mikeforjesus]

It is my belief that this is safest that others should do to be baptised by one who believes same that you must be baptised as adult incase required when one believes but until then if don’t know to be baptised by any church but maybe it only matters your belief and not one baptising and also to have communion with other Christian’s to break bread with another preferably who believes same as you but if you do not know any may be ok to do alone or can do with anyone as long as you believe if one does with you Christ may count and can go to any church if worried too.

I think God may not judge unless one neglects to do when one knows is available but should try to do and if not find atleast do in any church you can even those who don’t believe perfectly as you do and none can say it is cult for Jews in old covenant also needed to be circumcisied that we wouldn’t know if a teenager was never taught he needs to be circumcised though he is Jew that parents know but neglected that God would judge but it may not lead to judgement just as baptism but God is just but is best to do to be safe to leave judgement to Christ who alone can judge.

This page by the christadelphians seemed good but I learnt unfortunately they are a cult to have some wrong beliefs about Christ. But unfortunately I do not know if there is any church with such beliefs church of Christ seemed good to believe in baptism as a command but I think maybe they don’t believe it regenerates one. I don’t know about anabaptist church it’s other beliefs though I don’t agree with their position maybe that you can not self defend yourself when you are attacked for it is not wrong only not right to start war that Christ meant to turn the other cheek only when such loss is not danger to your physical well being or if you know you are ready for it to have redemptive effect but am in communion with their belief about baptism and I think about christ if they are like other Christian’s.

Baptism - Christadelphians

Baptism When Jesus ascended into heaven, he left his apostles to continue the work of preaching the gospel, and his charge to them was: “Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be...

bibletruth.net.au

 

[mikeforjesus]

I believe it is right to trust God that baptism and communion is not required but those who refuse to do may be sign they are not believers to be commited to God and God would not require baptism and communion if one found it difficult to find one of same beliefs to do for it is one intention to be obedient but people can seek to do or be baptised in any church they find they can for I believe God would not judge if one was not baptised but really sought to please Him but one can to be sure. I believe however they help one commitment to grow to be more fruitful so also should be done as adult.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Most never check the Greek text on 1 Peter 3:21 says The like figure whereunto BAPTISMA which speaks of the HOLY SPIRIT and NOT WATER BAPTISM // BAPTIZO , and check to see by using BLUE LETTER BIBLE and check it out !!
dan p

As someone who has looked at the Greek text of 1 Peter 3:21, multiple times, it's easy to see how your interpretation here is nonsense.

For anyone curious, here is 1 Peter 3:20-21 in the Greek,

ἀπειθήσασίν ποτε ὅτε ἀπεξεδέχετο ἡ τοῦ θεοῦ μακροθυμία ἐν ἡμέραις Νῶε κατασκευαζομένης κιβωτοῦ εἰς ἣν ὀλίγοι τοῦτ᾽ἔστιν ὀκτὼ ψυχαί διεσώθησαν δι᾽ὕδατος ὃ καὶ ὑμᾶς ἀντίτυπον νῦν σῴζει βάπτισμα οὐ σαρκὸς ἀπόθεσις ῥύπου ἀλλὰ συνειδήσεως ἀγαθῆς ἐπερώτημα εἰς θεόν δι᾽ἀναστάσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ

"who were disobedient at times past when God in patience waited in the days of Noah during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight souls were saved through the water. The antitype of this, baptism, now saves you, not the removal of dirt from the skin but the earnest appeal of a good conscience toward God by the resurrection of Jesus Christ."

Here is the connection, the eight were saved through the water by the ark, this is the type, which has a corresponding antitype, baptism, "which now saves you".

Even as God saved them through water (via the ark), so now does God save us through water (baptism); not as though we are merely removing dirt from the body, but by the power of Christ's resurrection we receive a new, a good, conscience before and toward God. We are renewed inwardly by God's grace through the water of baptism.

This begs the question, have you actually looked at the Greek here? You can do it right on the very website you mentioned:

1 Peter 3 :: English Standard Version (ESV)

1 Peter 3 - Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

www.blueletterbible.org

1 Peter 3 :: English Standard Version (ESV)

1 Peter 3 - Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

www.blueletterbible.org

Entirely absent from the text is that "baptism" means "Holy Spirit". Baptism means baptism here.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Doug Brents]

Most never check the Greek text on 1 Peter 3:21 says The like figure whereunto BAPTISMA which speaks of the HOLY SPIRIT and NOT WATER BAPTISM // BAPTIZO , and check to see by using BLUE LETTER BIBLE and check it out !!
dan p

You continue to associate baptisma (a noun meaning immersion) with Spirit baptism and baptismo (a verb meaning to immermse) with water baptism, but that is in error. They both deal with immersion (into anything). Neither is associated specifically with any single immersion.
Baptismo is simply a verb that means to immerse. It does not automatically directly connect with Spirit, water, blood, cloud, fire, etc.
Baptisma is simply a noun that means immersion. It does not automatically directly connect with Spirit, water, blood, cloud, fire, etc.
In the case of 1 Pet 3:21, the subject of the immersion is very clear (passing through the water of the Flood is likened to the immersion in water of baptism which now saves us.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You continue to associate baptisma (a noun meaning immersion) with Spirit baptism and baptismo (a verb meaning to immermse) with water baptism, but that is in error. They both deal with immersion (into anything). Neither is associated specifically with any single immersion.
Baptismo is simply a verb that means to immerse. It does not automatically directly connect with Spirit, water, blood, cloud, fire, etc.
Baptisma is simply a noun that means immersion. It does not automatically directly connect with Spirit, water, blood, cloud, fire, etc.
In the case of 1 Pet 3:21, the subject of the immersion is very clear (passing through the water of the Flood is likened to the immersion in water of baptism which now saves us.

My only contention with your post is that these words often indicate immersion/submersion, but not exclusively. In much the same way that the English words "bath" and "bathe" generally indicate being immersed into water, we use it also more generally and sometimes synonymously with washing. For example "bathing" can involve taking a shower, not necessarily submerging oneself into a tub full of water.

This is why early Christians still referred to affusion, not just immersion, as a mode of baptism; while immersion was standard and normative; in cases where there was an insufficient quantity of water affusion--aka pouring--was regarded as completely acceptable. It was still baptism, and they called it that. Because the essence of baptism wasn't the act of immersion itself, but rather that it was an application of water done for a specific purpose--a physical act wherein a spiritual act was happening. The washing of water was the outward sign of the spiritual washing that was happening: Our sins being washed away. Which is why St. Peter says of baptism in 1 Peter 3:21 that the significance of baptism isn't the removal of dirt from the skin, but the appeal/answer/desire of a good conscience toward God by Christ's resurrection.

So baptism was called, by Greek Christians mysterion, "a mystery"; while Latin Christians called it sacramentum, "a sacred pledge". The mystery is that connected to the water is God's promise; that the baptized is united to Christ's death, burial, and resurrection (Romans 6:3-4); it is a sacred pledge, an work and act of God by which the baptized is clothed with Christ (Galatians 3:27), in which there is forgiveness of sins (Acts 2:38), etc.

There is a visible and tangible component, and an invisible one: so the outward sign of baptism is the application of water; but the grace and spiritual reality is that we are cleansed by God--by His mercy and forgiveness, by Christ's shed blood and His entire atoning work, His death and resurrection.

So Baptism is a sacred mystery, a holy work of God, using a visible means to communicate His invisible grace (Augustine: "forma visibilis gratiae visibilis" visible form of invisible grace). So that Baptism is a visible expression of God's grace, God's own word--His promises--given a physical and tangible expression. Or as St. Augustine put it, a Sacrament is "verbum visibilis", "visible word".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Doug Brents]

My only contention with your post is that these words often indicate immersion/submersion, but not exclusively. In much the same way that the English words "bath" and "bathe" generally indicate being immersed into water, we use it also more generally and sometimes synonymously with washing. For example "bathing" can involve taking a shower, not necessarily submerging oneself into a tub full of water.

This is why early Christians still referred to affusion, not just immersion, as a mode of baptism; while immersion was standard and normative; in cases where there was an insufficient quantity of water affusion--aka pouring--was regarded as completely acceptable. It was still baptism, and they called it that. Because the essence of baptism wasn't the act of immersion itself, but rather that it was an application of water done for a specific purpose--a physical act wherein a spiritual act was happening. The washing of water was the outward sign of the spiritual washing that was happening: Our sins being washed away. Which is why St. Peter says of baptism in 1 Peter 3:21 that the significance of baptism isn't the removal of dirt from the skin, but the appeal/answer/desire of a good conscience toward God by Christ's resurrection.

Affusion was accepted by God? or by men? It really doesn't matter what men think of a certain act, or whether all mankind thinks an act is acceptable. If it is not what God commanded and accepts then it is wasted effort. God does care how He is worshiped, and He does care that we worship Him correctly. Consider Naaman. He was commanded to go dip in Jordan 7 times. If he had scooped water and poured it over himself would he have been cleansed? If he had dipped only 6 times, would he have been cleansed? If he had gone to some cleaner river in his homeland, would he have been cleansed? No, he would not have been cleansed. Yes, baptism is a physical act that precipitates a Spiritual act of cleansing by the Holy Spirit (Col 2:11-14), but it cannot be shortcut through pouring or sprinkling.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Affusion was accepted by God? or by men?

Already off to a bad start here. It assumes that God has clearly established that only one mode of baptism is acceptable, but that is a false assumption.

It really doesn't matter what men think of a certain act, or whether all mankind thinks an act is acceptable. If it is not what God commanded and accepts then it is wasted effort. God does care how He is worshiped, and He does care that we worship Him correctly. Consider Naaman. He was commanded to go dip in Jordan 7 times. If he had scooped water and poured it over himself would he have been cleansed? If he had dipped only 6 times, would he have been cleansed? If he had gone to some cleaner river in his homeland, would he have been cleansed? No, he would not have been cleansed. Yes, baptism is a physical act that precipitates a Spiritual act of cleansing by the Holy Spirit (Col 2:11-14), but it cannot be shortcut through pouring or sprinkling.

This is just noise attempting to obfuscate the actual subject I was addressing. The meaning of words.

Now if, for example, there were some place in Scripture that said that only immersion is acceptable as a mode of baptism, and God for some reason withholds His grace from not doing it "the right way" this would be a perfectly valid argument. But since nothing in Scripture says that, and there is no where which God has provided a command about the right mode of baptism, then this all becomes a moot point.

God is silent, and you don't get to speak on behalf of God where He has not Himself already spoken.

Now on to what is actually meaningful here: Early Christians, for whom the language of the New Testament--Koine--was their native tongue, and the common language of the time, clearly had no issue with recognizing affusion as a valid mode of baptism. For them "baptism" didn't require, by necessity, that it had to be immersion. Immersion was preferable, but pouring water was entirely valid. For them pouring water was still called baptism. Remember, this is their language, not yours, not mine, but theirs. So what they understood their own words to mean should be very relevant here.

If someone two thousand years in the future traveled back in time, and their knowledge of my language was basically just a dictionary or a lexicon, and tried to tell me that they know my language better than I do--that'd be pretty insulting.

My argument is that Greek speaking Christians didn't see "immersion only" in the word "baptism", and that is significant. If you want to go down the road of "God or man" stuff, well you'd do a good job if you could present an example of God commanding a particular mode of baptism. But you know just as well as I do that no such command exists.

The etymological argument you want to present is undermined by history and actual language-use.

Now, you could try to present a descriptive argument--point out that in Scripture that immersion is, at the very least, suggested in the descriptions of people being baptized. And I'd agree with you that it is reasonable to assume that immersion is what is being described.

I would counter that with a simple biblical hermeneutical point: Description is not the same thing as prescription. A description of something is not, of itself, a prescriptive teaching. We know, for example, that in the Acts of the Apostles that Christians were basically limited to either meeting at the local synagogue or in each others homes. That is the description we see in the Acts; I mean where else would they meet, those are the only two kinds of buildings which would exist which could facilitate Christians meeting. Now synagogue attendance was mostly limited to Jewish Christians, especially where synagogues would have had mixed members, with both Christian and non-Christian Jews. Which is why the emphasis for distinctly Christian gathering is in homes. Now, do these descriptive elements mean that Christians have to meet in homes? Are we forbidden from having a specific and dedicated space for Christian worship, aka a church (and yes, I know what Ekklesia means, so I hope this doesn't become a tangent into the Church being the people not the building, I get that, I'm talking about a place where Christians can gather together for worship, whatever you want to call it).

We can do this for a lot of things--descriptions in Scripture are not, by necessity, prescriptive. Yes, Paul went to the Temple, Jesus observed the Sabbath. Does that mean Christians should support a Jewish Temple being rebuilt so they can go there? Does that mean Christians are supposed to observe the Jewish Sabbath? No.

So without a prescriptive element, a mere description of people baptized by the mode of immersion does not make it prescriptive itself.

There's no doubt, no argument against, that immersion was standard, normal, it's how baptism was done--usually. So that's not the argument either. Again, the argument I'm making is that immersion-only baptism is not biblical, and it's not intrinsic to the meaning of the word "baptize"/"baptism" as Christians themselves practiced Christianity and used these words.

So as I see it, you're only real recourse would be to find a prescriptive element--a command from God that says only immersion is acceptable. That is really the only option available for you if you really want to make this a word of God vs word of man thing.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

but it cannot be shortcut through pouring or sprinkling.

What? Paul was baptized in a standing position.

See Acts 9:17ff and Acts 22:16ff.

In Acts 9, Paul is struck blind on the Damascus Road. He is led to the house of Judas where for three days he doesn't eat or drink. The Lord comes to Ananias and tells him to go to the house of Judas to restore Paul's sight. He does so and enters the house of Judas. Luke writes...."the Lord as has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit. And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he stood up (ἀναστὰς) and was baptized; 19 and he took food and was strengthened."

Just how is it possible for Paul to be immersed standing up inside of a house?

The "not eating or drinking" before his baptism and "eating of food" after his baptism, are the contextual bookends that this all happened in the same location and in short time.

Furthermore, as Paul retells this story in Acts 22:16 he uses the same language. Why do you delay? STAND UP (ἀναστὰς) and be baptized, and wash away your sins by calling on His name." The same Greek word for "stand up" is in both passages. And this happened very quickly as 22:16 states: Do not delay.

Paul was not immersed in the house of Judas. We have two texts from Scripture, both commenting on the same event, both using the same Greek verb for standing up, both commenting on a mode of baptism and contextually it cannot be immersion baptism.

In interpreting an historical narrative, we use the plain text meaning rule. A reasonable person would come to this conclusion. I am not saying all people will come to the conclusion that Paul was standing up when he was baptized, but I am saying it is a reasonable deduction from the text itself.

Testing the reasonable person rule of interpreting Scripture: Supposing I were to place an ad on Craigslist asking for thirty known agnostics to interpret Acts 9:18 and 22:16 and each would receive $100. An explanation would be given on the various modes of baptism used historically (immersion, sprinkling, pouring). Then I would give a visual example of each mode. After reading the whole chapter nine, they then would try to determine what mode was used in 9:18 and 22:16. The result would be inconclusive, but they would certainly rule out immersion. Thirty known agnostics would agree that Paul was not immersed.

The problem here is called confirmation bias. If a Baptist were brought up from cradle to grave, believing "all baptism in the NT are immersion," THEN THEY ARE. But how do you know they are, unless each and every instance is investigated to determine if they are immersion?

For the last two hundred years in the English langugage, non-immersionists have been using this argument, and all we get from Baptists is silence.

 

[Doug Brents]

This is just noise attempting to obfuscate the actual subject I was addressing. The meaning of words.

Now if, for example, there were some place in Scripture that said that only immersion is acceptable as a mode of baptism, and God for some reason withholds His grace from not doing it "the right way" this would be a perfectly valid argument. But since nothing in Scripture says that, and there is no where which God has provided a command about the right mode of baptism, then this all becomes a moot point.

God is silent, and you don't get to speak on behalf of God where He has not Himself already spoken.

No, the translators of the KJV did us a very big disservice when they transliterated "baptizo/baptisma" and created the English word "baptize/baptism", instead of properly translating the word into "immerse/immersion". Sadly, they had the practice (as did the "clergy" for many hundreds of years before them) of sprinkling and pouring, and knew that they would be shown to be violating God's command if the "lay" people were able to read that the command was really "to immerse". So they created the word "baptize" and defined it as "sprinkling or pouring" so as not to reveal their failure to obey God.

Now on to what is actually meaningful here: Early Christians, for whom the language of the New Testament--Koine--was their native tongue, and the common language of the time, clearly had no issue with recognizing affusion as a valid mode of baptism. For them "baptism" didn't require, by necessity, that it had to be immersion. Immersion was preferable, but pouring water was entirely valid. For them pouring water was still called baptism. Remember, this is their language, not yours, not mine, but theirs. So what they understood their own words to mean should be very relevant here.

Yes, their understanding of their language is very important, but there is no indication in any of their writings that I have ever seen or heard of that point to baptizo meaning anything other than to immerse. The Greek words for sprinkling and pouring are very different words.

If someone two thousand years in the future traveled back in time, and their knowledge of my language was basically just a dictionary or a lexicon, and tried to tell me that they know my language better than I do--that'd be pretty insulting.

My argument is that Greek speaking Christians didn't see "immersion only" in the word "baptism", and that is significant. If you want to go down the road of "God or man" stuff, well you'd do a good job if you could present an example of God commanding a particular mode of baptism. But you know just as well as I do that no such command exists.

The etymological argument you want to present is undermined by history and actual language-use.

Now, you could try to present a descriptive argument--point out that in Scripture that immersion is, at the very least, suggested in the descriptions of people being baptized. And I'd agree with you that it is reasonable to assume that immersion is what is being described.

I would counter that with a simple biblical hermeneutical point: Description is not the same thing as prescription. A description of something is not, of itself, a prescriptive teaching. We know, for example, that in the Acts of the Apostles that Christians were basically limited to either meeting at the local synagogue or in each others homes. That is the description we see in the Acts; I mean where else would they meet, those are the only two kinds of buildings which would exist which could facilitate Christians meeting. Now synagogue attendance was mostly limited to Jewish Christians, especially where synagogues would have had mixed members, with both Christian and non-Christian Jews. Which is why the emphasis for distinctly Christian gathering is in homes. Now, do these descriptive elements mean that Christians have to meet in homes? Are we forbidden from having a specific and dedicated space for Christian worship, aka a church (and yes, I know what Ekklesia means, so I hope this doesn't become a tangent into the Church being the people not the building, I get that, I'm talking about a place where Christians can gather together for worship, whatever you want to call it).

We can do this for a lot of things--descriptions in Scripture are not, by necessity, prescriptive. Yes, Paul went to the Temple, Jesus observed the Sabbath. Does that mean Christians should support a Jewish Temple being rebuilt so they can go there? Does that mean Christians are supposed to observe the Jewish Sabbath? No.

So without a prescriptive element, a mere description of people baptized by the mode of immersion does not make it prescriptive itself.

There's no doubt, no argument against, that immersion was standard, normal, it's how baptism was done--usually. So that's not the argument either. Again, the argument I'm making is that immersion-only baptism is not biblical, and it's not intrinsic to the meaning of the word "baptize"/"baptism" as Christians themselves practiced Christianity and used these words.

So as I see it, you're only real recourse would be to find a prescriptive element--a command from God that says only immersion is acceptable. That is really the only option available for you if you really want to make this a word of God vs word of man thing.

-CryptoLutheran

You make very good arguments (and I agree with you about what you said about the building in which we worship and the day on which we meet), but likewise, there is no indication in Scripture that immersion (baptism) means anything other than immersion. There may have been men's practices in the early Church (outside of the Bible) that portray them pouring or sprinkling, but there is nothing in Scripture that indicates that. The mode employed by the Apostles and the early Deacons (Phillip is of note) was to immerse. That is what the word means and that is the practice that we see in Scripture. To deviate from that is to deviate from proper Biblical understanding and example.

 

[Doug Brents]

What? Paul was baptized in a standing position.

See Acts 9:17ff and Acts 22:16ff.

In Acts 9, Paul is struck blind on the Damascus Road. He is led to the house of Judas where for three days he doesn't eat or drink. The Lord comes to Ananias and tells him to go to the house of Judas to restore Paul's sight. He does so and enters the house of Judas. Luke writes...."the Lord as has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit. And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he stood up (ἀναστὰς) and was baptized; 19 and he took food and was strengthened."

Just how is it possible for Paul to be immersed standing up inside of a house?

The "not eating or drinking" before his baptism and "eating of food" after his baptism, are the contextual bookends that this all happened in the same location and in short time.

ROTFL No, Paul was not baptized standing there in the house. He stood up, went to where there was water (which was probably very near the house) and was immersed, and then returned to the house to eat. Just as the Jailer in Philipi was taken to where there was water at the same hour of the night as when he found Paul and washed his wounds.

Furthermore, as Paul retells this story in Acts 22:16 he uses the same language. Why do you delay? STAND UP (ἀναστὰς) and be baptized, and wash away your sins by calling on His name." The same Greek word for "stand up" is in both passages. And this happened very quickly as 22:16 states: Do not delay.

Paul was not immersed in the house of Judas. We have two texts from Scripture, both commenting on the same event, both using the same Greek verb for standing up, both commenting on a mode of baptism and contextually it cannot be immersion baptism.

In interpreting an historical narrative, we use the plain text meaning rule. A reasonable person would come to this conclusion. I am not saying all people will come to the conclusion that Paul was standing up when he was baptized, but I am saying it is a reasonable deduction from the text itself.

Testing the reasonable person rule of interpreting Scripture: Supposing I were to place an ad on Craigslist asking for thirty known agnostics to interpret Acts 9:18 and 22:16 and each would receive $100. An explanation would be given on the various modes of baptism used historically (immersion, sprinkling, pouring). Then I would give a visual example of each mode. After reading the whole chapter nine, they then would try to determine what mode was used in 9:18 and 22:16. The result would be inconclusive, but they would certainly rule out immersion. Thirty known agnostics would agree that Paul was not immersed.

The problem here is called confirmation bias. If a Baptist were brought up from cradle to grave, believing "all baptism in the NT are immersion," THEN THEY ARE. But how do you know they are, unless each and every instance is investigated to determine if they are immersion?

For the last two hundred years in the English langugage, non-immersionists have been using this argument, and all we get from Baptists is silence.

First off, I am not Baptist.
Second, it really doesn't matter how many people you get to "rule out" immersion as the mode of baptism in your study. What matters is the command given by God. Note that if sprinkling or pouring were legitimate modes of baptism (immersion), then Paul did not need to stand up at all. He could have remained where he was sitting, as that would make it easier for the person pouring to perform the task. But he was told to arise because he was not already sitting in the water into which he was to be immersed. So he had to get up and go to that place where there was enough water to do so.

 

[lanceleo]

In the Greek language in which the New Testament was written, the word for baptism is baptizo, which comes from bapto, meaning “to dip,” “to plunge under,” “to immerse.”

For example, the word bapto was used among the Greeks to signify the dyeing of a garment. When a piece of cloth was to be dyed, it was plunged under the colored liquid until changed into the color of the dye.

Another example of the use of this word was the drawing of water by dipping one vessel into another. The vessel being used to draw water was immersed beneath the water in the larger vessel.

Colossians 2:12
King James Version
12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

ROTFL No, Paul was not baptized standing there in the house. He stood up, went to where there was water (which was probably very near the house) and was immersed, and then returned to the house to eat. Just as the Jailer in Philipi was taken to where there was water at the same hour of the night as when he found Paul and washed his wounds.

Wow! This is not what the text says. Confirmation bias at it's max. The text says after he was baptized IN A HOUSE, then he got something to eat. You are fabricating a fanciful scenario that doesn't exist. Might as well state, "Scotty beamed him to a river." Remember, you have two texts stating the same facts. A reasonable person would come to this conclusion. A reasonable person is someone who doesn't have skin in the game and can come to an unbiased conclusion.

And the jailer had to take a night hike with Paul and Silas (beaten and battered) to get dunked. Are you kidding me? A reasonable person would not come to this conclusion unless they have been taught from cradle to grave...all baptisms in the NT are immersion. Did the jailer get dunked in a well or did the Romans provide hot tubes for the prisoners for dunking?

 

[ViaCrucis]

No, the translators of the KJV did us a very big disservice when they transliterated "baptizo/baptisma" and created the English word "baptize/baptism", instead of properly translating the word into "immerse/immersion". Sadly, they had the practice (as did the "clergy" for many hundreds of years before them) of sprinkling and pouring, and knew that they would be shown to be violating God's command if the "lay" people were able to read that the command was really "to immerse". So they created the word "baptize" and defined it as "sprinkling or pouring" so as not to reveal their failure to obey God.

Yes, their understanding of their language is very important, but there is no indication in any of their writings that I have ever seen or heard of that point to baptizo meaning anything other than to immerse. The Greek words for sprinkling and pouring are very different words.

You make very good arguments (and I agree with you about what you said about the building in which we worship and the day on which we meet), but likewise, there is no indication in Scripture that immersion (baptism) means anything other than immersion. There may have been men's practices in the early Church (outside of the Bible) that portray them pouring or sprinkling, but there is nothing in Scripture that indicates that. The mode employed by the Apostles and the early Deacons (Phillip is of note) was to immerse. That is what the word means and that is the practice that we see in Scripture. To deviate from that is to deviate from proper Biblical understanding and example.

You said, "Yes, their understanding of their language is very important, but there is no indication in any of their writings that I have ever seen or heard of that point to baptizo meaning anything other than to immerse."

And here you would be mistaken.

Didache 7:1-4 c. 60-120 AD
Περὶ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσματος, οὕτω βαπτίσατε· ταῦτα πάντα πρειπόντες, βαπτίσατε εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος ἐν ὕδατι ζῶντι. ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἔχῃς ὕδωρ ζῶν, εἰς ἄλλο ὕδωρ βάπτισον· εἰ δ’ οὐ δύνασαι ἐν ψυχρῷ, ἐν θερμῷ. ἐὰν δὲ ἀμφότερα μὴ ἔχῃς, ἔκχεον εἰς τὴν κεφαλὴν τρὶς ὕδωρ εἰς ὄνομα πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος. πρὸ δὲ τοῦ βαπτίσμος προνηστευσάτω ὁ βαπτίζων καὶ ὁ βαπτιζόμενος καὶ εἴ τινες ἄλλοι δύναται· κελεύεις δὲ νηστεῦσαι τὸν βαπτιζόμενον πρὸ μιᾶς ἢ δύο.

"And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before."

ἐὰν δὲ ἀμφότερα μὴ ἔχῃς, ἔκχεον εἰς τὴν κεφαλὴν τρὶς ὕδωρ
"If you have neither, pour water thrice upon the head"

You can point out that the Didache is not Scripture, but it is still what native Greek-speaking Christians, Christians who were active in the apostolic communities founded by Paul, Peter, et al, were saying and doing.

Your accusations of disobedience to the ancient apostolic and sub-apostolic Christians, or to the English academics who made the KJV is merely empty slander.

It appears to me that you don't really have a valid argument and so you are instead merely trying to slander those who don't share your opinion.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

In the Greek language in which the New Testament was written, the word for baptism is baptizo, which comes from bapto, meaning “to dip,” “to plunge under,” “to immerse.”

For example, the word bapto was used among the Greeks to signify the dyeing of a garment. When a piece of cloth was to be dyed, it was plunged under the colored liquid until changed into the color of the dye.

Another example of the use of this word was the drawing of water by dipping one vessel into another. The vessel being used to draw water was immersed beneath the water in the larger vessel.

Any Bible dictionary will provide various meaning of the word Baptizó. Interpretation of this word is not rocket science. We only address the meaning of the word βαπτίζω where water is applied to the human body.

There are six passages of Scripture where 1) the word Baptizó is used, 2) water is applied to the human body, 3) and contextually it cannot mean "immersion." Credobaptists refute this assertion and emphatically state there are zero passages of Scripture which assert this tri-part definition. Who is correct?

Paul's baptism comprise the first two passages of this tri-part definition.

Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:4 clearly gives us this tri-part definiton for our third and fourth passages. In both passages, ceremonial washing of the hands is the topic. In both cases, the greek word βαπτίζω for washing of the hands. In Luke the Pharisee was astonished Jesus didn't baptize himself before eating the meal. This clearly doesn't mean Jesus didn't take a bath. It means he didn't ceremonially "wash" (βαπτίζω) his hands. In Mark we have the same situation. The Pharisees were criticizing the disciples for not washing (βαπτίζω) their hands after coming from the market. The tri-part definition holds: The word βαπτίζω is used, water is applied to the human body, and contextually it is not immersion baptism.

The fifth and sixth examples of Scripture refer to typological references to baptism in I Peter 3 and I Corinthians 10. No immersion there either.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

What matters is the command given by God.

There is no command in Scripture to immerse anybody. This cannot be demonstrated from Scripture. There is no "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not" when it comes to the mode of baptism.

The major problem with the Credo's interpretation of Scripture is the failure to distinguish between a descriptive statement of Scripture and a prescriptive statement of Scripture. As ViaCrucis said,

I would counter that with a simple biblical hermeneutical point: Description is not the same thing as prescription. A description of something is not, of itself, a prescriptive teaching.

All examples of baptisms in the Book of Acts are descriptive. No commands.

However, we do have one passages from the Book of Acts which is prescriptive...Peter's sermon. And we know it is prescriptive from context....of the commands and promises.

• Dual Commands: “Repent and be Baptized.”
• Dual Promises: “For the forgiveness of sins” and “You shall receive the Holy Spirit.”
• Baptismal continuance: “This promise is for you and your children.”
• Geographical or Missional significance: “For all those to are far off and away.”

The interpretive key: Acts 2:38-39 DOES NOT prescribe a mode baptism. There is no
“Thou shalt be immersed.” “Thus saith the Lord”

There is no clear-cut command in the Bible as to how the Church is to perform baptism, and anyone who asserts that there is such a command is not examining the text properly.

What would convince me to believe in immersion only baptism?

• Demonstrate a prescriptive command to immerse only.
• Demonstrate a prescriptive command not to sprinkle or pour.

 

[Doug Brents]

Wow! This is not what the text says. Confirmation bias at it's max. The text says after he was baptized IN A HOUSE, then he got something to eat. You are fabricating a fanciful scenario that doesn't exist. Might as well state, "Scotty beamed him to a river." Remember, you have two texts stating the same facts. A reasonable person would come to this conclusion. A reasonable person is someone who doesn't have skin in the game and can come to an unbiased conclusion.

And the jailer had to take a night hike with Paul and Silas (beaten and battered) to get dunked. Are you kidding me? A reasonable person would not come to this conclusion unless they have been taught from cradle to grave...all baptisms in the NT are immersion. Did the jailer get dunked in a well or did the Romans provide hot tubes for the prisoners for dunking?

Scripture does not say he was baptized "in a house". It says he got up and was immersed. A reasonable person would read the word baptizo (which means to immerse) and come to the conclusion that he went to the nearest place that had enough water to immerse him, and he was immersed. A reasonable person does not read the word immerse and conclude that he had a cup of water poured over his head. A reasonable person does not take third and fourth century (all the way up to 21st century) practices and imprint them onto first century words.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

A reasonable person does not read the word immerse and conclude that he had a cup of water poured over his head.

What about the first baptism in Acts?

Did 3,000 people bring a towel and an extra change of clothes?
Did 3,000 people walk around dripping wet? (I hope it wasn't a cold day).
Did 3,000 people strip down to their Palestinian G strings?
Did 3,000 people go skinny dipping?

Can you image what it would be like to be the 2,987 person being dunked? People traveling didn't take baths or showers regularly in those days. How someone could be dunked in that bio-hazardous soup is beyond my imagination. And TP hadn't been invented yet!

************

And a reasonable person would not conclude Jesus had to take a bath in Luke 11:38 before eating a meal and a reasonable person would not conclude Jesus' disciples had to take a bath after going to the market in Mark 7:4. Just maybe, a person would conclude all you need is a "cup of water" (your words) poured over their hands to wash them which would satisfy the ceremonial requirements.