Baptism and communion

[Doug Brents]

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.

In Mark and Luke that you reference above, the hands were "dipped"; that is, the hands were baptized. Not the whole body, but the hands only were immersed in water for the purpose of ceremonial cleansing. This certainly does not fit part three of your "tri-part definition".
Paul's baptism does not fit your "tri-part definition" either. Paul was immersed in water for the purpose of receiving forgiveness of his sins.
1 Pet 3 certainly refers to immersion.
And 1 Cor 10 refers to Israel being immersed into Moses in the Cloud (God) and immersed in the Sea.

Remember, it is best to define situations by the words used, not to define words based on the situation which they describe. The word baptizo in Greek means to immerse in English; not to pour, not to sprinkle.

 

[Doug Brents]

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!

ROTFL John baptized in Jordan many hundreds (perhaps thousands) of people, during all times of the year. People took off their outer garment, and wore their under garments into the water, and then put their outer garment back on when they came out of the water. Remember, their cloths were very different from what we wear today. And yes, it was early spring in Israel on Pentecost, so the temperature would have been quite pleasant.

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.

No, they dipped (baptized) their hands as they entered the house. As pointed out in an earlier post, it was not the whole body that had to be purified according to the Law, only the hands.

 

[Doug Brents]

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.

Mark 16:16 - He who believes and is baptized (immersed) will be saved...
Matt 28:19 - Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing (immersing) them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,...
Acts 2:38 - Repent and be baptized (immersed) in order to receive forgiveness of sins...
Acts 8:36-39 - Here is water; what prevents me from being baptized (immersed), and they went down into the water, and when they had come up out of the water...

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,

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.

The prescriptive command is in the word itself. The word is to immerse. Not to pour (σερβίρω or κυλώ), not to sprinkle (ραντίζω, or καταβρέχω) but immerse (βαπτίζω).

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

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.

A reasonable person does not take third and fourth century words (B.C.) as Plato and Aristotle understood the words and "imprint them onto first century words."

***********

About three centuries before the NT was written, a cultural phenomenon called Hellenism had a lasting impact on Judaism and the Jewish people. Hellenism was a synthesis of the Greek language with the native cultures all around Rome’s conquered lands. Israel was no exception. The best example of Hellenism is the production of the LXX around 250 BC. Greek words gradually begin to migrate into the Hebrew and Aramaic and take on new meanings.

Take for instance the NT word σάρξ (sarx). The Hellenistic meaning of the word would be flesh or meat….this is how Aristotle or Plato would have understood the term. In the NT, it is quite different…it means the Old Adam or our sin nature. Common Hellenistic words such as heaven, God, redemption, kingdom, ekklésia and faith, do not have the same meaning for the pagan Greek as they do for Christian.

The same phenomena occurred with the word Baptizó. Before the NT was written, the Jews first took the Hellenistic word “baptism” out of its original pagan context and used it for the practice of general ceremonial washing. In other words, Baptizó changed meaning from immersion to wash. The NT has four words for “wash” or “washing” βαπτίζω , ἀπολούω , λουτρόν and νίπτω all of which are synonyms.

The NT provides us with two examples where βαπτίζω is translated “wash” in the NT particularly when water is applied to the human body and contextually it cannot be immersion.

Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:4. In Luke 11:38, the Pharisee was astonished that Jesus didn’t ceremonially wash (Baptizó) his hands before dinner. In Mark, the disciples were criticized for not ceremonially washing their hands (Baptizó) after buying food at the market. It would be an absurdity to translate Baptizó as immersion in this context, which would imply a person had immerse his entire body in water before every meal.

Luke 11 and Mark 7 demonstrates the NT usage βαπτίζω no longer has the exclusive semantic range of only "immersion" of ancient Hellenistic Greek. Rather βαπτίζω has a wider meaning which incorporates “to wash” as its NT common usage when water is applied to the human body whether by immersing, pouring, or sprinkling.

βαπτίζω is real synonym of ἀπολούω , λουτρόν and νίπτω in the NT. Luke could have used ἀπολούω, λουτρόν, or νίπτω in Jesus condemning man made laws for ceremonial washing before meals and there would be no change in meaning. Instead he chose βαπτίζω.
This is the basic NT meaning of the word βαπτίζω (specifically when water is applied to the human body) means “to wash” or “to cleanse with water,” whether by immersing, pouring, or sprinkling. Etymological meaning βαπτίζω (as Plato or Aristotle would understood)….only immersion has limited usage in the NT not general usage.

For Credobaptists, the etymological meaning of the word βαπτίζω is the only meaning. A supposition that can not be sustained by the NT text.

​

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Credobaptists commit the semantic "fallacy of the root."

The root fallacy is a common error where a person assumes that the meaning of a word must be bound to the meaning of its etymological root. This fallacy assumes that the root of a term and its cognates carries a basic meaning that is reflected in every subordinate use of the word.

Any Bible dictionary will demonstrate βαπτίζω has more than one meaning and clearly doesn't ALWAYS MEAN IMMERSE.

I am done with this conversation. It goes no further.

 

[Doug Brents]

βαπτίζω is real synonym of ἀπολούω , λουτρόν and νίπτω in the NT. Luke could have used ἀπολούω, λουτρόν, or νίπτω in Jesus condemning man made laws for ceremonial washing before meals and there would be no change in meaning. Instead he chose βαπτίζω.
This is the basic NT meaning of the word βαπτίζω (specifically when water is applied to the human body) means “to wash” or “to cleanse with water,” whether by immersing, pouring, or sprinkling. Etymological meaning βαπτίζω (as Plato or Aristotle would understood)….only immersion has limited usage in the NT not general usage.

βαπτίζω is used in Scripture when immersion is the form of washing or cleansing to be employed. When pouring or sprinkling is permissible, then a word other than βαπτίζω is used.

 

[ViaCrucis]

In Mark and Luke that you reference above, the hands were "dipped"; that is, the hands were baptized. Not the whole body, but the hands only were immersed in water for the purpose of ceremonial cleansing. This certainly does not fit part three of your "tri-part definition".
Paul's baptism does not fit your "tri-part definition" either. Paul was immersed in water for the purpose of receiving forgiveness of his sins.
1 Pet 3 certainly refers to immersion.
And 1 Cor 10 refers to Israel being immersed into Moses in the Cloud (God) and immersed in the Sea.

Remember, it is best to define situations by the words used, not to define words based on the situation which they describe. The word baptizo in Greek means to immerse in English; not to pour, not to sprinkle.

Except, and this is important, Jewish ritual handwashing doesn't involve dipping the hands. But pouring water over the hands.

This is the tradition the Pharisees were upset that Jesus didn't do:

Ritual Hand Washing Before Meals | My Jewish Learning

Jewish custom now normally associated with meals started with Temple purity. By Rabbi Louis Jacobs

www.myjewishlearning.com

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

βαπτίζω is used in Scripture when immersion is the form of washing or cleansing to be employed. When pouring or sprinkling is permissible, then a word other than βαπτίζω is used.

Luke 11:38 uses an inflected form of βαπτίζω. And it refers to pouring water over the hands to render them ritually clean to eat a meal.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

βαπτίζω is used in Scripture when immersion is the form of washing or cleansing to be employed. When pouring or sprinkling is permissible, then a word other than βαπτίζω is used.

This is obviously untrue, since Luke 11:38 uses a form of βαπτίζω. And it refers to the ritual of pouring water over the hands. Netilat yadayim is a ritual of washing the hands by pouring water over them. Dipping hands in water would not render the hands ritually pure. Not according to the rabbinic tradition being referenced in Luke 11:38 which is still practiced by modern observant Jews.

That's the thing about the Jewish context of the New Testament--we have examples of Jewish practice all the way from the rabbis of the first century to the practices of rabbinic Judaism today. Rabbinic Judaism is Pharisaism after the destruction of the Temple. All the other Jewish sects disappeared, the only survivors was Pharisaism and a messianic sect of Judaism that arose in the first century centered around Jesus of Nazareth: Christianity.

This is also why Jesus could say to Nicodemus that he should know better, as a rabbi, what Jesus was talking about when He said "born again". Because Jewish conversion practice involves a ritual washing--tevilah--in a ritual bath--mikveh--in which a person receives a kind of new birth--they gain a new identity as a Jew. So when Jesus mentions water and the Spirit in reference to the new birth in John 3:5, Nicodemus should have known better than to think that Jesus meant literally re-entering the womb. This new birth Jesus was talking about, it's the very thing He instituted in Matthew 28:19.

-CryptoLutheranh

 

[lanceleo]

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.

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.

What do you understand by buried?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

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.

What do you understand by buried?

Jesus was not buried in the ground and immersed with dirt. The women in the morning didn’t go to the tomb of Jesus with shovels, picks, and a wheel barrow to dig up the body of Jesus. This is not a picture of immersion baptism as in dunking.

When credo’s state this is a picture of immersion baptism, they are confusing modern burial practices with ancient burial practices. “To bury” refers to any process in which we place human remains in their final resting place.

In the ancient middle east, it was common for prominent people to be buried in a tomb. The Egyptian pharaohs were buried in their pyramids. Abraham was buried in a cave. King David was buried in a tomb in Jerusalem. John’s the Baptist headless body was “buried” in a tomb. The raising of Lazarus was from a tomb. And Jesus was buried a tomb.

A distinction must be made between what baptism accomplishes (Col. 2) and how baptism is to be administered (Book of Acts). Col. 2 is not a text on how to administer baptism.

Immersion only baptism is an argument by conjecture, conclusive only to those who already presuppose “baptism always means immersion in the Bible.” It is a belief in search of any text. Colossians 2 is a prime example.

 

[lanceleo]

When credo’s state this is a picture of immersion baptism, they are confusing modern burial practices with ancient burial practices. “To bury” refers to any process in which we place human remains in their final resting place.

While it's true Jesus was not buried in the ground covered in dirt, he was fully buried in the sepulcher. You don't see his limbs or part of his body sticking out. Therefore sprinkling or pouring of water for baptism are not he biblical modes of baptism. When Jesus went to John the Baptist to be baptized he went to the river where John was where there was much water for immersion.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

You don't see his limbs or part of his body sticking out. Therefore sprinkling or pouring of water for baptism are not he biblical modes of baptism

Immersion only baptism is an argument by conjecture, conclusive only to those who already presuppose “baptism always means immersion in the Bible.” It is a belief in search of any text.

Not seeing his limbs sticking out is a prime example of seeing immersion only baptism under any leaf or twig of Scripture. Only an immersionist would come up such a bizarre rendering of the text.

 

[lanceleo]

Immersion only baptism is an argument by conjecture, conclusive only to those who already presuppose “baptism always means immersion in the Bible.” It is a belief in search of any text.

Not seeing his limbs sticking out is a prime example of seeing immersion only baptism under any leaf or twig of Scripture. Only an immersionist would come up such a bizarre rendering of the text.

Matthew 3:5-6​

King James Version​

5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,​

6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.​

The Bible could not make it any clearer. They were baptized — in the waters of the River Jordan. Indeed, the Bible teaches that both John the Baptist and our Lord Jesus Himself chose a place where there was much water, to do their baptizing:

John 3:22-23​

King James Version​

22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.​

23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.​

Aenon means “fountains” or “springs.” You can go there today and still see the abundant springs of water.

Mark 1:9-10​

King James Version​

9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.​

10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:​

Acts 8:38-39​

King James Version​

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.​

39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.​

Why does the Bible say “they came up out of the water”? Because the word “baptize” means to dip under, and the New Testament speaks of no other way of baptism. So immersion is hardly an argument by conjecture.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Acts 8:38-39King James Version38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
Why does the Bible say “they came up out of the water”? Because the word “baptize” means to dip under, and the New Testament speaks of no other way of baptism. So immersion is hardly an argument by conjecture.

Acts 8 is known for the immersionist doctrine of the DOUBLE DIPPING method of baptism.

Let's examine just how immersionists get "immersion baptism" from this text? In vs. 38....They went down into the water “going under, or submersion” and “they came up out of the water” They resurfaced. This supposedly is immersion baptism. But is it?

What is the problem here? We pay attention to the grammar especially the pronouns….the two Greek verbs which depict movement are Third person plurals. Whatever Phillip does the Eunuch does…vice versa. Whatever is attributed the Eunuch is attributed to phillip

and they both went down (κατέβησαν, 3Plural) into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 When they came up (ἀνέβησαν 3P) out of the water,

• According to the immersionist theory of this baptism, both the Phillip and the Eunuch were immersed.
• They both went into the water....(submersion) AND they both came out (resurfaced).
• Grammar informs theology. Theology doesn't inform grammar. The grammatical usage of the third person plurals allows no other explanation if immersion baptism is seen here.

What is Luke trying to convey?

• Duel Immersion of both the baptizer and baptizee
• Is Luke trying to inform us how the Eunuch was baptized is more important than him being baptized?
• Is Luke also trying to inform us that dual immersion is prescribed for all Christian to follow henceforth?
• How many immersionist preachers go under the water with the ones being baptized?
• Does Luke really want his readers to believe that Phillip immersed himself first and then the Eunuch? HENCE THE DOCTRINE OF DOUBLE DIPPING.

To read immersion baptism into this passage an argument by conjecture, conclusive only to those who already presuppose “baptism always means immersion in the Bible,” If you want to find immersion baptism in the Bible you will, by doing an injustice to the actual context.

A QUOTE: Also, look carefully at the text’s sequence; it’s very precise. They went down into the water, he baptized him, then they came up. If “went down” and “came up” refer to the immersion itself, then we’re left with the ridiculous picture of Philip pushing the eunuch under (presumably going under himself, too), then immersing him while they’re both under water, and then both of them coming up together out of the water.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Mark 1:9-10King James Version9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:

Note that he "came out of the water" after he was baptized, not when he was baptized. Grammar always trumps theology. We don't impose immersion on this text.

But there are more problems here for the immersionist. Question: Which way was John looking when he saw the dove descending on Jesus?

In all of the narratives concerning the Baptism of Jesus it is reported that John the Baptist was the one who saw, and testified, that the Spirit descended upon Jesus. There is an improbability here: If John is busy pulling Jesus out from under the water, then how can he see the Spirit of God descend upon Jesus? Of all of the Immersions I have seen the one who is administering the Immersion (like John the Baptist) is looking down, not up.

The Bible is emphatic that it was done immediately, "straightway" (eutheos) as Jesus is "coming up out of the water" the Spirit of God, "Descends upon Him like a dove." For the Immersionist picture to work John the Baptist would have to stop pulling Jesus out of the water, turn his head 180 degress, and look up, then watch the Holy Spirit descend upon Jesus as he finishes pulling Jesus out of the water. The present tense "coming" makes the Immersionist view implausible.

To read immersion baptism into this passage is an argument by conjecture, conclusive only to those who already presuppose “baptism always means immersion in the Bible.” There certainly a desperate attempt to read immersion baptism among immersionists everywhere possible. Grammar always trumps theology.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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.

What do you understand by buried?

In baptism we we died with Christ, we were buried with Christ, and we have been raised with Christ. This is a profound mystery of our faith--that God unites us together with His Son, clothing us with Him (Galatians 3:27), places us in Christ; so that we partake of His suffering, His death, His burial, and His resurrection; so that since we died with Christ we have partaken of His death--the death which is above every other death, and thus we have, in Christ, died to the world; died to sin, died to our passions; our death, our passions, our sin-laden flesh was crucified with the Lord, and buried with Him. And He rose from the dead, and having been raised with Him, now partake of His life, so that we are alive in Christ, alive to God, alive to righteousness. The old man has been slain and laid down in the ground, and a new man has been raised up, as a new creation. The new man who lives in Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit, which is--in Christ--the child and heir of God. We have, therefore, received sonship--joined to Christ who is the only-begotten of the Father and His inheritance is now also ours as pure gift, so that all which belongs to Christ He shares with us.

The old man died with Jesus in baptism, and buried with Him--the old man is therefore slain in order that the new man might be created. In this mortal life we nevertheless continue in struggle between the old and new man. The old man has died, but must remain dead; and the new man is alive, but must remain alive. Thus the old man must be slain by repentance--we remember our baptism by which the old man was slain, and in repentance confess that we have faltered and failed--sinned--against both God and our neighbor; that the Law might crush the old man; even as in the Gospel we hear, believe, and confess that we are forgiven freely by God's grace, for Christ suffered once, dying once and for all, for the sins of everyone; and therefore Christ who perfect and righteous, and dying for us, makes perfect satisfaction and reconciles us to the Father, destroying sin and all its power, defeating death, hell, and the devil by His death and resurrection. The old man having died, and remaining dead by repentance and the harsh preaching of the Law--that we are sinners who have failed and fallen, in need of the Savior--and the new man fed and alive by God's grace--receiving mercy and forgiveness and life everlasting in God's promises and gifts. In Word and Sacrament the new man remains alive, the old man is dead, and ours is the inheritance and eternal life, God has raised up Christ so too will He raise us up.

Even as we were raised with Christ in baptism, so too shall we, even our own very flesh, burst forth from the grave on that future Day when Christ returns; and God makes all things new. So that what is given in baptism shall grow and flourish and finally spring forth from the earth in glorious resurrection and life eternal.

That is what is meant to be buried with Christ in baptism.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Matthew 3:5-6​

King James Version​

5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,​

6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.​

The Bible could not make it any clearer. They were baptized — in the waters of the River Jordan. Indeed, the Bible teaches that both John the Baptist and our Lord Jesus Himself chose a place where there was much water, to do their baptizing:

John 3:22-23​

King James Version​

22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.​

23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.​

Aenon means “fountains” or “springs.” You can go there today and still see the abundant springs of water.

Mark 1:9-10​

King James Version​

9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.​

10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:​

Acts 8:38-39​

King James Version​

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.​

39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.​

Why does the Bible say “they came up out of the water”? Because the word “baptize” means to dip under, and the New Testament speaks of no other way of baptism. So immersion is hardly an argument by conjecture.

Description =/= prescription.

Further, the Bible does use the word to refer to pouring, in Luke 11:38. The hand-washing ritual of Judaism that the Pharisees were upset with Jesus about is a ritual washing of hands that involves pouring water over the hands--not dipping the hands in water.

Even if every description of a baptism--whether John's baptism or later Christian baptism--involves immersion, that only offers us description, not prescription.

It is clear that in Christian use "baptize" and "baptism" has never been "immerse-only", but has always included washing in a more general sense; rooted in Jewish practice (John's baptism was an extension and radical form of the Jewish practice of ritual immersion known as tevilah). And so ritual washing of hands can also be described as a "baptism" of sorts, even though it involves pouring water, not dipping hands in water.

Further, beginning with St. John the Baptist we hear these words, that the Messiah would "baptize with the Holy Spirit, and with fire". Jesus repeats these same words in Acts ch. 1, talking about what would happen "a few days from now" on Pentecost when the nascent Church was gathered together in the upper room. When Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, explains what was happening, he points to the Prophet Joel,

"And in the last days it shall be, God declares,
that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh,"

Did you notice that word there? Pour, God said He would pour out His Spirit.

The Spirit was poured out on Pentecost, in fulfillment of what Joel has prophesied so long ago; and is what John the Baptist prophesied concerning the Messiah.

It was not an immersion into the Spirit--that isn't the language Scripture uses. It is the pouring out of the Spirit upon.

So this "baptism" with the Spirit which John spoke about, fulfilled on Pentecost, was a pouring, not an immersion. Nobody was dipped into the Spirit, the Spirit was poured out upon all of them. And He is poured out upon all of us, who being baptized have forgiveness of our sins and receive the Holy Spirit Himself as gift (Acts 2:38), so that St. Paul can say in 1 Corinthians 12:13 that by the same and one Holy Spirit we were all baptized, and so baptized, are members of Christ's Body.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[lanceleo]

A QUOTE: Also, look carefully at the text’s sequence; it’s very precise. They went down into the water, he baptized him, then they came up. If “went down” and “came up” refer to the immersion itself, then we’re left with the ridiculous picture of Philip pushing the eunuch under (presumably going under himself, too), then immersing him while they’re both under water, and then both of them coming up together out of the water.

They "went down" but the scripture did not specifically say Philip was immersed. It's extremely hard or virtually impossible for one immersed person to hold another immersed person down in water. By going down, Philip was not necessarily immersed. It's common for one to stand knee-deep in the water and hold another down. Think about an undertaker who is carrying a dead body down to the grave to bury it. He was in the grave with the body but is not buried together with it. Let's not overcomplicate things.

 

[lanceleo]

To read immersion baptism into this passage is an argument by conjecture, conclusive only to those who already presuppose “baptism always means immersion in the Bible.” There certainly a desperate attempt to read immersion baptism among immersionists everywhere possible. Grammar always trumps theology.

Please supply NT scriptural evidence for non-immersive baptism.