Why do Baptists think immersion equal submersion?

[BigNorsk]

It seems to me that Baptist use the two words immersion and submersion as equivalent as well as baptism equal to submersion as well? Why is that? It's pretty easy to demonstrate baptism as equivalent to pouring and sprinkling, but where is baptism equals submersion?

Can anyone attempt to show proof that the word translated baptism (baptizo) is used to mean submersion in the Bible?

What does the Bible say is the mode of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit? I can only find pouring. How is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit not by submersion is Baptism equals submersion?

Marv

[DeaconDean]

It seems to me that Baptist use the two words immersion and submersion as equivalent as well as baptism equal to submersion as well? Why is that? It's pretty easy to demonstrate baptism as equivalent to pouring and sprinkling, but where is baptism equals submersion?

Can anyone attempt to show proof that the word translated baptism (baptizo) is used to mean submersion in the Bible?

What does the Bible say is the mode of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit? I can only find pouring. How is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit not by submersion is Baptism equals submersion?

Marv

OK, brother, can you show me in scriptures where baptizw means to sprinkle, pour?

Now I can give you the Lexiconal definition if you wish.

baptizw - 1 pers. sg. pres. act. indic., fut. baptisw, aor. ebaptisqhn, perf. pass., pr. to dip, immerse, to cleanse or purify by washing; to administer the rite of baptism, to baptize; met. with with various reference to the ideas associated with Christian baptism as an act of dedication, e.g., marked designation, devotion, trial, etc., mid. to procure baptism for one's self, to undergo baptism"

The New Anaylitcal Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Perschbacher, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass., 01962, Copyright 1990, Ninth Printing, 2006, baptizw, p. 66

Since this is a Baptist section, I will not argue with you. But I ask that you show me where baptizw means to sprinkle or pour.

And let me ask you a question:

What was the significance of Jesus' baptism?

God Bless

Till all are one.

[BigNorsk]

Jesus' baptism was to install him as the new high priest. The age for priesthood under the law was 30 so Jesus waited until the age of 30 to start his ministry as the new high priest. High priest were installed through washings (baptisms) and annointings. That's why Jesus' baptism was not a baptism of repentance or forgiveness of sin but to fulfill all righteousness.

Here is a reference to baptism equals pouring. Luk 11:38 NET.
(38) The Pharisee was astonished when he saw that Jesus did not first wash his hands before the meal.

"Wash" is the translation of "baptizo", baptism. We see other references to this custom that the Pharisees would not eat unless they washed in the Bible. We also know exactly how it was to be done, even including the minimum amount of water, and that the water is poured over the hands and down the arms. It's important that the water flows down the arms. Something impossible to do with submersion. You can also see orthodox Jews and Muslim still perform this today.

We also see the Bible call it pouring , in the baptism unto Moses.

1Co 10:1-2 NET.
(1) For I do not want you to be unaware, brothers and sisters, that our fathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea,
(2) and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,

We actually see in scripture how God did the baptism.

Psa 77:15-17 NET.
(15) You delivered your people by your strength —
the children of Jacob and Joseph. (Selah)
(16) The waters saw you, O God,
the waters saw you and trembled.
Yes, the depths of the sea shook with fear.
(17) The clouds poured down rain;
the skies thundered.
Yes, your arrows flashed about.

The Bible calls the mode of baptism pouring, since it was obviously rain I guess you could call it sprinkling as well, but it's definitely not submersion, that was the Egyptians who were submerged and it's never referenced that the Egyptians were baptized.

I can also show that sprinkling was definitely used in the meaning of the word at the time of Jesus, but I do need to use the Apochrypha. But we really can't argue that the writers of the Apochrypha didn't know Greek, the original language, can we?

Sir 34:25 KJVA
(25) He that washeth himself after the touching of a dead body, if he touch it again, what availeth his washing?

The washeth is again the English translation of baptizo. We know exactly how this washing was to be done, the person was to be baptized by sprinkling.

Num 19:11-13 KJVA
(11) He that toucheth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days.
(12) He shall purify himself with it on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be clean: but if he purify not himself the third day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean.
(13) Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.

As I mentioned in the OP. We also have the baptism of the Holy Spirit referred to as pouring. Act 2:16-21 NET.
(16) But this is what was spoken about through the prophet Joel:
(17) 'And in the last days it will be,' God says,
'that I will pour out my Spirit on all people,
and your sons and your daughters will prophesy,
and your young men will see visions,
and your old men will dream dreams.
(18) Even on my servants, both men and women,
I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.
(19) And I will perform wonders in the sky above
and miraculous signs on the earth below,
blood and fire and clouds of smoke.
(20) The sun will be changed to darkness
and the moon to blood
before the great and glorious day of the Lord comes.
(21) And then everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'

Both references to God baptizing by pouring out his Spirit. That is unless you don't want to admit that the people in Chapter 2 of Acts received the baptism of the Holy Spirit?

So there you go, easily shown that both pouring and sprinkling are included in the meaning of the word baptizo by people at the time of Jesus.

Marv

[Epiphoskei]

It seems to me that Baptist use the two words immersion and submersion as equivalent as well as baptism equal to submersion as well? Why is that? It's pretty easy to demonstrate baptism as equivalent to pouring and sprinkling, but where is baptism equals submersion?

Can anyone attempt to show proof that the word translated baptism (baptizo) is used to mean submersion in the Bible?

What does the Bible say is the mode of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit? I can only find pouring. How is the Baptism of the Holy Spirit not by submersion is Baptism equals submersion?

Marv

Baptidso can be any form of washing, as far as a word study goes. However there can be no serious doubt based especially on the didache that early christian baptisms were based on the mikvah bath, which was certainly not sprinkling. This practice remained the preferred and dominant one until the turn of the second millenium. Since at least 100 some sort of pouring has been an acceptible substitution if and only if something prohibited immersion, and I, even though I am a baptist, woudn't care if a believer was poured over provided some extreme circumstances... I just won't put up with some sillyness as if John was sprinkling in the Jordan. Context trumps word study.

[DeaconDean]

Brother, excuse me but this post may run so please bear with me.

First off, let me again say that because of the definition of the Greek word baptizw says to dip, immerse, to cleanse or purify by washing; to administer the rite of baptism, to baptize; met. with with various reference to the ideas associated with Christian baptism as an act of dedication, e.g., marked designation, devotion, trial, etc., mid. to procure baptism for one's self, to undergo baptism, that is what I accept, plain and simple. I've already given you the definition in my earlier post. And here I've given it again.

Next, your explaination of Jesus being installed as "high priest" I cannot accept either.

According to the Torah, to be installed as high priest, several things had to be done. A sacrifice had to be offered before the priest could be installed. This did not happen with Jesus.

And because a sacrifice had to be offered, the blood of the sacrifice was to be placed on the tip of the ear, and the toe. This did not happen with Jesus. None of this happened because Jesus was already the "Annointed One."

Let me explain something else. John the Baptist/Identifier/Revealer had only a three-fold mission in this life. One, he was to Identify the coming Messiah. Two, he was to reveal the "glory of the Lord." And three, he was to prepare the lamb for the coming sacrifice.

I call John by three names, and this is proper. Some may make light of this, but let me explain further. According to the scriptures, John was to "reveal the glory of the Lord." (cf. Isa. 40:5) This prophecy was fulfill in John's statement:

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me...The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world." -Jn. 1:14-15, 29 (KJV)

John had thus not only Identified the Messiah, but he had also revealed the glory of the Lord. (...which taketh away the sin of the world. -Jn. 1:29)

Not only did John reveal God's glory, but he also "identified" Jesus as our sacrifical lamb:

"Behold the Lamb of God,..And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith, Behold the Lamb of God!" -Jn. 1:29, 36 (KJV)

You and I can both agree that Jesus had absolutely nothing to repent of. That is not the issue. But what was it John was preaching? "Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." (Mt. 3:2)

Jesus had nothing to be repented of so the reason for His baptism must lie in some other reason.

Jesus was God's Annointed, so the annointing process of the OT does not apply. But the prepreation of the sacrifical Lamb does.

What I'm about to show, is rather long and drawn out but bear with me.

In Ex. 12, we have the instructions from God to Moses on how the lamb was to be taken, examined, held, and ultimately sacrificed. Then how the blood was to be place on the door-posts and lentle. This was done from the 10th day of Passover until the 14th day. The man would go out into the flock, pick a lamb that was without blimish. It was taken into the house, held there until the 14th day and then examined again. If it was still without spot, then it was accepted and was sacrificed. (cf. E. 12: 3-6)

Jesus came to John the Baptist/Identifier/Revealer to present Himself to God to be examined to see if He was without spot or blemish. After Jesus was "immersed," "dipped" and came "straightway" out of the water, the heavens opened up, the Spirit desended, and God spoke from heaven. Some argue that the Spirit came upon Jesus at this time, but Jesus being God in the flesh, did not need the Spirit to "come upon Him."

But, what is important is that God proclaims from heaven His acceptance of Jesus as the sacrifical lamb by His proclaimation:

"This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." -Mt. 3:17 (KJV)

After the "baptism," Jesus began His three year ministry in Israel. Compare this to the three days the lamb was held in the house before the 14th day of Passover. At the end of the three year ministry, or, the night before the 14th day of Passover, Jesus takes Peter, James, and John to the mount of transfiguration. There Jesus again presents Himself to God to be examined to see if He was still without spot or blemish. To prove that Jesus was accepted as the sacrifical lamb, ready to go to Calvary, God proclaims again from Heaven:

"This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him." -Mt. 17:5 (KJV)

And then Jesus proceded on to Calvary.

Now, to get to the other part. You said:

"Wash" is the translation of "baptizo", baptism. We see other references to this custom that the Pharisees would not eat unless they washed in the Bible. We also know exactly how it was to be done, even including the minimum amount of water, and that the water is poured over the hands and down the arms. It's important that the water flows down the arms. Something impossible to do with submersion. You can also see orthodox Jews and Muslim still perform this today.

We also see the Bible call it pouring , in the baptism unto Moses.

Num 19:11-13 KJVA
(11) He that toucheth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days.
(12) He shall purify himself with it on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be clean: but if he purify not himself the third day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean.
(13) Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.

You evidently didn't finish reading what Jesus also said to the Pharisees in rebuke of Him not washing His hands.

"...to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man." -Mt. 15:20 (KJV)

You use the illustration of the leper as proof of sprinkling by water. Yet it cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the "washing" means pouring water down the arms.

I can give you another example of a leper who went a "dipped" himself in water to cleanse himself.

"Now Naaman, captain of the host of the king of Syria, was a great man with his master, and honourable, because by him the LORD had given deliverance unto Syria: he was also a mighty man in valour, but he was a leper...And it was so, when Elisha the man of God had heard that the king of Israel had rent his clothes, that he sent to the king, saying, Wherefore hast thou rent thy clothes? let him come now to me, and he shall know that there is a prophet in Israel. So Naaman came with his horses and with his chariot, and stood at the door of the house of Elisha. And Elisha sent a messenger unto him, saying, Go and wash in Jordan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt be clean. But Naaman was wroth, and went away, and said, Behold, I thought, He will surely come out to me, and stand, and call on the name of the LORD his God, and strike his hand over the place, and recover the leper. Are not Abana and Pharpar, rivers of Damascus, better than all the waters of Israel? may I not wash in them, and be clean? So he turned and went away in a rage. And his servants came near, and spake unto him, and said, My father, if the prophet had bid thee do some great thing, wouldest thou not have done it? how much rather then, when he saith to thee, Wash, and be clean? Then went he down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean." -2 Kings 5:1, 8-14 (KJV)

Now, you say washing involved pouring and sprinkling. I submit, that that isn't always the case. Elisha told Naaman to go and wash himself. If according to you, all Naaman had to do was pour water over his arms seven times and he would have been clean. But I also submit to you the Hebrew word here in 2 Kings 5:14 also means "to dip, dip into, plunge. (See Strongs Number: 2881)

Did Naaman disobey Elisha? Perhaps Naaman misunderstood Elisha? I don't think so.

Elisha told him to go wash and that is what he did. He dipped himself in the river Jordan seven times and became clean.

Furthermore, Jesus coming to John to be baptized also shows this same process in action.

Jesus came to John to be baptized as a fulfillment of Levitical law. The sacrifical lamb had to be washed before it was presented on the altar. (Lev. 1:9-13)

John the Baptist/Identifier/Revealer, dipped, immersed Jesus in the river Jordan in order to "wash" the sacrifice.

Now to the second point. You said:

Both references to God baptizing by pouring out his Spirit. That is unless you don't want to admit that the people in Chapter 2 of Acts received the baptism of the Holy Spirit?

So there you go, easily shown that both pouring and sprinkling are included in the meaning of the word baptizo by people at the time of Jesus.


Lets go back to the Greek. The Greek word here is "ekcew." And it means: "to pour out, to shed blood, to gush out, to spill, scatter, to give largely, bestow liberally, to rush headlong into anything, be abandoned to"

So to strickly limit this word to "pour' as one does when one pours a glass of water to drink is wrong also.

A more proper rendering would be that God would bestow his Spirit upon the people of God.

And another arguement is Peter's phrase:

"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." -Acts 2:38 (KJV)

I submit that the suggestion that one must be "baptized" in order to receive the Holy Spirit is wrong also.

We learn in John 16:

"And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:" -Jn. 16:8 (KJV)

The Greek word here we are concerned with is "elegxei." And properly rendered means, "to put to proof, to test, to convict, to refute, confute, to detect, lay bare, expose, reprove, rebuke, to discipline, chastise, to eperience conviction"

Jesus said it was the job of the Holy Spirit to come to the sinner and convict him of sin. Two times in the OT and once in the NT, we learn that the root of sin lies in the heart. And according to the OT, it also requires a new heart. So in oder to convict of sin, the Holy Spirit must be working from within, in the heart, to convict it of sin prior to repentance and confession. So I cannot accept "baptism' as proof of receiving the Holy Spirit either.

The word in Acts 2:38 is in the 3rd person singular, aorist, and passive. Why were these individuals "baptized?" Because of repentance.

I cannot accept the reasoning of God literally "pouring" out the Spirit as one does when "pouring" themselves something to drink.

Since the parts of the Lamb to be sacrificed were to be washed, they were placed "in" (immersed) the laver.

The Greek word and its definition, and the example of Naaman, show that washing involved dipping or immersion in water.

So I'm sorry friend, I cannot accept "pouring" or "sprinkling" as the only acceptable method of baptism.

And besides all this, the method of baptism is not what's important. The obedience of the command of Jesus to be baptized is what's important.

According to the Lexicon definition, baptism also carries a "maked designation" or identification. In Romans 6:3-4 we learn just what that identfication is.

"Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life." -Rom. 6:3-4 (KJV)

We were identified with Christ by our baptism. In other words, our baptism indentifies us with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection. When He died, I died. When He was buried, I was buried. When He rose from the dead, I arose with Him.

As Christ went into the earth, so did I. Our baptism marks us, identifies us with Christ in His burial. Was Jesus "poured" with dirt? No. Was Jesus sprinkled with dirt? No. He went into "the heart of the earth," (cf. Mt. 12:40) so we must go under the water.

As I said before, the mode of baptism is not important, only the obedience to Jesus' command is.

You have your beliefs, I have mine.

May God Bless you in yours.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Gwenyfur]

If y'all don't mind...

Hubby's Pastor often qualifies baptism as the submersion being a picture of Y'shua in the grave, and the "old man's" death...and the rising from the water as a picture of Y'shua's resurrection, and the believer's "new man" given life.

not quite an accurate picture of the mitvoh, but ... close enough ;)

[DeaconDean]

That is what I was taught also. Going under the water is our identification of being united with Him in death, and coming up out of the water is our identifiaction of coming up out of the grave with Him.

That is what Rom. 6:3-4 teaches.


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Gwenyfur again.


God Bless

Till all are one.

[BigNorsk]

Baptidso can be any form of washing, as far as a word study goes. However there can be no serious doubt based especially on the didache that early christian baptisms were based on the mikvah bath, which was certainly not sprinkling. This practice remained the preferred and dominant one until the turn of the second millenium. Since at least 100 some sort of pouring has been an acceptible substitution if and only if something prohibited immersion, and I, even though I am a baptist, woudn't care if a believer was poured over provided some extreme circumstances... I just won't put up with some sillyness as if John was sprinkling in the Jordan. Context trumps word study.

It's quite one thing to have a prefered mode of baptism such as the Didache talks about. But it's quite another to call other modes invalid or say there is only one mode, which is quite contradictory to the Didache but seems to me to be Baptist doctrine. To follow the Didache, Baptists could use submersion themselves, but they certainly wouldn't consider baptisms where people were not submerged invalid.

I don't see any mode of baptism by John specifically mentioned. I would guess he probably didn't dip hyssop into the water and sprinkle, but we don't know for sure that he didn't. He could easily have used effusion, pouring. Which would be how the paintings in the catacombes show baptism. People would walk down into the water, and John could have poured water over their heads and then they would have walked up out of the water.

The Jordan would also have allowed submersion and the language would have been the same, unless mode was important. Other incidents of baptism seem to preclude submersion since there does not seem to be enough water available to do so.

It would seem to me that you have a pretty well correct position if you prefer submersion but do not consider other modes invalid. Do you find a lot of Baptists share that point of view?

Marv

[BigNorsk]

Dean,

Did you get my post mixed up with some other? For instance you say I used a leper as an example which I did not, I used touching a dead body. For which a person was sprinkled for purification.

And sure the leper dipped himself, that was the word bapto which normally means dipping of some form. What does that have to do with the discussion?

And you seem to think I am saying submersion is not valid or something. I never said that. You asked me to show pouring or sprinkling and using text of that time which would show how the word baptizo would be understood, I showed both definitely. Hence my question of why would Baptists teach that submersion is the meaning of baptism and the only acceptable mode?

Could you show where the sacrificial lamb was submerged in water? I can't find it, just that the legs and the entrails were washed. Are you saying this washing of the legs and entrails is equivalent to the baptism of Jesus? If it is, then washing and not submersion would be in view.

Marv

[BigNorsk]

How is submersion like Jesus' burial? I have trouble picturing how being wrapped in cloth and laid in a tomb is somehow symbolized by submersion. Maybe I'm missing something. I've heard that used before but still don't understand how it's anything like Jesus' burial. It would be somewhat like burial today, with a person lowered into a grave, with soil then put over them, but not like Jesus' burial in a tomb.

Marv

[prgallo]

How is submersion like Jesus' burial? I have trouble picturing how being wrapped in cloth and laid in a tomb is somehow symbolized by submersion. Maybe I'm missing something. I've heard that used before but still don't understand how it's anything like Jesus' burial. It would be somewhat like burial today, with a person lowered into a grave, with soil then put over them, but not like Jesus' burial in a tomb.

Marv
Colossians 2 Read This Chapter (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=col+2&version=nkj&showtools=0)2:12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

The picture is that when being laid back into the water it is like being laid down into the grave. When emerging from the water it like emerging or being raised from the grave, or being resurrected.


It's a symbolic and a public statement of having been saved. It isn't a reenactment of being placed into a cave. The scripture supports this as a picture of the death, burial and ressurection.

Other responses?

[Project 86]

Colossians 2 Read This Chapter (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=col+2&version=nkj&showtools=0)2:12 buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.

The picture is that when being laid back into the water it is like being laid down into the grave. When emerging from the water it like emerging or being raised from the grave, or being resurrected.


It's a symbolic and a public statement of having been saved. It isn't a reenactment of being placed into a cave. The scripture supports this as a picture of the death, burial and ressurection.

Other responses?

The BBC rendition of C.S. Lewis's Prince Caspian book did a wonderful job showing how baptism represents the resurrection and how we become new creatures in Christ when we are saved.

[Epiphoskei]

It would seem to me that you have a pretty well correct position if you prefer submersion but do not consider other modes invalid. Do you find a lot of Baptists share that point of view?

No, I don't run into too many like this. In fact, I'm not sure, but I might take some flak about this from the other Baptists. But one thing to remember is that in the minds of many Baptists, sprinkling is the same thing as paedobaptism and immersion is credobaptism. It doesn't always occur to us that there could be paedobaptist immersers (like, if I understand them correctly, many eastern orthodox churches) or credobaptist sprinklers. Since credobaptism is a necesarry doctrine to be considered "baptist," immersion often gets tacked on to the back. It's still considered important, but in my experience that discussion pales in comparison to the matter of believer's baptism.

And while I'm not sure I could say to a credobaptistically sprinkled believer, "your baptism was invalid," I still don't believe in sprinklings of convenience. The planet is 70% water; there had better be some compelling extenuating circumstances.

[DeaconDean]

Dean,

Did you get my post mixed up with some other? For instance you say I used a leper as an example which I did not, I used touching a dead body. For which a person was sprinkled for purification.

And sure the leper dipped himself, that was the word bapto which normally means dipping of some form. What does that have to do with the discussion?

And you seem to think I am saying submersion is not valid or something. I never said that. You asked me to show pouring or sprinkling and using text of that time which would show how the word baptizo would be understood, I showed both definitely. Hence my question of why would Baptists teach that submersion is the meaning of baptism and the only acceptable mode?

Could you show where the sacrificial lamb was submerged in water? I can't find it, just that the legs and the entrails were washed. Are you saying this washing of the legs and entrails is equivalent to the baptism of Jesus? If it is, then washing and not submersion would be in view.

Marv

Ok, my bad. You use Number 19: 11-13 as your text or proof, of "sprinkling."

What does the text say:

He that toucheth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days. He shall purify himself with it on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be clean: but if he purify not himself the third day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean. Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him." -numbers 19:11-13 (KJV)

The key word in this text is not "sprinkled." The key to the whole text is the word "purify."

The person who touches a dead body, absolutely must purify themselves. Why must they purify themselves?

According to the Hebrew word "Chata'" (Strongs Number 2398) they have "to sin, miss, miss the way, go wrong, incur guilt, forfeit, purify from uncleanness."

http://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=02398&version=kjv

And according to the Hebrew Lexicon, the usage of the word for "wash" in Lev. 1:9, 12, is "Rachats" or "
יִרְחַץ
in verse 9, and
יִרְחַץ

in verse 12, and they both mean: "to wash, wash off, wash away, bathe

(Qal)
to wash, wash off, wash away
to wash, bathe (oneself)
(Pual) to be washed
(Hithpael) to wash oneselfhttp://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=07364&version=kjv

You cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that "wash" does not mean immersion. Since we are not dealing ritual uncleanliness, the sacrifice was "bathed" or immersed into the laver.

And since your reference to Numbers 19:11-13 and to touching a dead body thus making one "ritually unclean," the method of cleansing oneself is:

"Typically, one can remove oneself or one's items from being tamei by waiting a certain period of time and then immersing the tamei item in a mikvah."

That is the process involved in Num. 19:11-13, Lev. 1:9-13.

And because Jesus is the "Lamb of God," our sacrifice for sin, He was immersed beneath the waters of the River Jordan.

The Greek word agrees with this, the Hebrew word agrees with this, the Talmud agrees with this, and the process described by the Tumah, agrees with this.

How is submersion like Jesus' burial? I have trouble picturing how being wrapped in cloth and laid in a tomb is somehow symbolized by submersion. Maybe I'm missing something. I've heard that used before but still don't understand how it's anything like Jesus' burial. It would be somewhat like burial today, with a person lowered into a grave, with soil then put over them, but not like Jesus' burial in a tomb.

Marv

prgallo has already said it. (cf. Col. 2:12) And my reference to Rom. 6:3-4.

A tomb, grave, sepulchre, all come from the same Greek word: "mnhmeiwn" or mnhmeion. Pronounced "mnay-mi'-on." And it means tomb, grave, or sepulchre. Just because Jesus was buried in a tomb, or sepulchre, that does mean He wasn't placed in a grave as as you or I might be if Jesus tarries.

No matter how you slice it, a grave is a grave, whether its a tomb, sepulchre, or grave. Its still a grave.

And to prove it, look at Mt. 27:53 and 27:60. Now it was a literal tomb, or sepulchre that Jesus was buried in, but the point is, the mnhmeion of the dead saints in verse 53 does not make the distinction. And the fact that some were evidently buried in the ground, covered with dirt, did not stop them from being united with Jesus in His resurrection.

Do you think it will make any difference to the dead saints, when Jesus returns, whether they have been buried in the dirt, or placed in a mausolem (tomb, sepulchre), or even creamated?

A grave is a grave whether its a grave, tomb, or sepulchre.

And, the Greek word in Col. 2:12 is "sunqapto" - sunthapto. And it literally means to bury with, or to be buried with.

Just as Christ was buried in a sepulchre, we are buried, whether its a grave, tomb, sepulchre. And as Christ was buried in a sepulchre, our baptism is symbolic of "to be buried with" Him in His sepulchre, tomb, grave.

Let me ask you a question.

If Joseph of Aramethia, had taken Jesus' body, wrapped it in clean linen, and placed it in a literal grave, and covered it with dirt, would that have changed the outcome?

Would you then be able to understand the illustration of immersion in water as being united with Jesus in death and resurrection?

Listen, what it boils down to is minor, I've already conceeded that the "method' of baptism is not important. What is important is the obedience to the commad of Jesus to be baptized that is important.

And the fact that the New Testament word "baptizw" means "to dip, to immerse," that is my prefered method. The method I believe in, the method I'll use.

My mother was raised Presbyterian, and was "sprinkled" when she was younger. After marrying my dad, and attending a Baptist church, she became convinced of Baptism by immersion, and when she joined the church, she willingly submitted to baptism by immersion. Not that hers wasn't invalid, but she was convinced that the immersion was the proper way, and she wanted to be baptized that way.

It would seem to me that you have a pretty well correct position if you prefer submersion but do not consider other modes invalid. Do you find a lot of Baptists share that point of view?

Brother, I cannot answer that with absolute authority. I do know that anybody who wants to join our church, if they have already confessed a belief in the risen Savior, and been baptized, they do not always have to be re-baptized. Now I cannot speak for all Baptists, but from what I know, Baptists do not accept a Catholic baptism, because of the Catholic belief in the necessity of Baptism for salvation. In other words, because they teach that one must be baptized in order to be saved, ( a requirement for salvation) it is often rejected in most (?) Baptist churches.

And I do know that lets say for example, if you crossed denominational lines, and wanted to join a Baptist church, your baptism in most likelyhood would be accepted because you were baptized because of a confessed belief in the risen Savior. Sprinkling, pouring set aside.

As I've said before, the method is not the issue, the obedience is however.

Sorry for the misunderstanding on the Numbers reference.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[BigNorsk]

Dean, The word in Numbers for spinkling is H2236, zaraq. And you are right in that the key isn't sprinkling but purification, it's just that sprinkling was how it was done, and that sprinkling was clearly called baptism by the author of Sirach. Which shows that baptism does not equal submersion. Which brings me back to why do so many Baptists think it does equal submersion when it clearly did not in the language at the time?

Marv

[sageoffools]

Norsk, to add to what DeaconDean said.
According to Strong's Exhaustive concordance the word baptize means:
1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
3) to overwhelm

The Greek word baptizo was the word a Greek would have used if he had seen the Titanic go down, he would say it had been "baptized". A sunken ship didn't just have a little water sprinkled on it, it was fully submerged.

Additionally Romans 6:4 says:"Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."
When you go to a funeral, at the graveside they don't sprinkle a little dirt on the head of a person being buried and say they are all done, that person is totally immersed in dirt.
Likewise, Jesus didn't just have some dirt sprinkled on Him, he was "submerged" in the earth, being in the tomb.

[prgallo]

Norsk, to add to what DeaconDean said.
According to Strong's Exhaustive concordance the word baptize means:
1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
3) to overwhelm

The Greek word baptizo was the word a Greek would have used if he had seen the Titanic go down, he would say it had been "baptized". A sunken ship didn't just have a little water sprinkled on it, it was fully submerged.

Additionally Romans 6:4 says:"Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life."
When you go to a funeral, at the graveside they don't sprinkle a little dirt on the head of a person being buried and say they are all done, that person is totally immersed in dirt.
Likewise, Jesus didn't just have some dirt sprinkled on Him, he was "submerged" in the earth, being in the tomb.

Exactly! I had to laugh at Stong's full definition though. It's described like making pickles believe it or not.

Everbody knows you can't sprinkle a cucumber and get a pickle!

Definition in Strong's

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 overwhelmNot to be confused with 911, bapto. The clearest example that showsthe meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physicianNicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that inorder 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 asolution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act ofbaptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change. When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to ourunion 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. Theremust be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to thepickle! Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989.

[Epiphoskei]

Dean, The word in Numbers for spinkling is H2236, zaraq. And you are right in that the key isn't sprinkling but purification, it's just that sprinkling was how it was done, and that sprinkling was clearly called baptism by the author of Sirach. Which shows that baptism does not equal submersion. Which brings me back to why do so many Baptists think it does equal submersion when it clearly did not in the language at the time?

Marv

As I said, context trumps word studies. If history tells us that baptisms were supposed to be done as much like a Jewish mikvah as possible, then that's what the technical definition of Baptism means, even if baptidso can have other meanings.

[DeaconDean]

Dean, The word in Numbers for spinkling is H2236, zaraq. And you are right in that the key isn't sprinkling but purification, it's just that sprinkling was how it was done, and that sprinkling was clearly called baptism by the author of Sirach. Which shows that baptism does not equal submersion. Which brings me back to why do so many Baptists think it does equal submersion when it clearly did not in the language at the time?

Marv

With all due respect, I will not argue with you from the Apocrypha. I do not believe its "inspired." Nor does it add to the salvic value of Jesus Christ's work and ministry here.

To me, the Apocrypha are nothing but "history" books. Nothing more, nothing less. If you want to give merit to them be my guest, but I will not. And in fact, I have not even studied them, nor do I plan on studying them in the future.

And also, with all due respect, the New Testament was written in Greek. And, the Greek word for baptize, does mean dip/immerse.

Here you go, I'll give the Greek definition one last time, for I've already shown you this two times prior:

"baptizw - 1 pers. sg. pres. act. indic., fut. baptisw, aor. ebaptisqhn, perf. pass., pr. to dip, immerse, to cleanse or purify by washing; to administer the rite of baptism, to baptize; met. with with various reference to the ideas associated with Christian baptism as an act of dedication, e.g., marked designation, devotion, trial, etc., mid. to procure baptism for one's self, to undergo baptism"

The New Anaylitcal Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Perschbacher, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass., 01962, Copyright 1990, Ninth Printing, 2006, baptizw, p. 66

Now I was willing, and in fact, earlier, said that the mode wasn't the important part, only the obedience to Jesus' command.

But, the Greek word is plain as the nose on your face, it means to dip, or immerse. Period.

And since when, does all of the OT still apply today?

99% of the "ritual cleasning" in the OT involved dipping or immersing in water. As shown by Naaman's example. In the example of a woman after child birth. And by the immersion of women after their menstrual cycle.

Plus the fact that not only is baptism symbolic of our unity with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection, but also of being "ritually cleasned."

The Greek word from Mt. 3 onward, makes it clear that Baptism involves being dipped or immersed in water.

Now brother, I'm gonna say, if you believe in "sprinkling" or "pouring," fine, God Bless you.

I believe that the Greek word teaches us that immersion is the proper way, but I'm not being overly dogmatic about it.

The mode of baptism is not the important factor. What is important is the believers obedience to our Lord's command. That is the important part.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[BigNorsk]

Boy Dean you sure can miss a point. I'm not saying the Apocrypha is scripture. What I'm saying is that in Sirach, which was originally written in Greek, not translated to Greek, the author uses the word for baptism where we clearly know he is talking about the person being sprinkled clean. It is proof that in the language of the day, the word for baptism included sprinkling. We see in the case where Jesus was expected to wash his hands it includes pouring as well. And the baptism unto Moses is called pouring as well certainly not submersion, certainly baptism.

And I would note that Noah and his family prefigured baptism as well, they were sprinkled or poured on, it was the unsaved who were submerged.

And the early pictures from the catacombs show pouring not submersion.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:qLJPOmZFcRbx2M:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/69/Baptism_-_Marcellinus_and_Peter.jpg http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:G27aBlT1JRCxjM:http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/5/5e/180px-Baptism_-_Saint_Calixte.jpg

Many of the posts seems to be from the standpoint that if submersion is included that excluded pouring and sprinkling. I have no reason to discount the bible nor really the Apocrypha as to the meaning at the time. They both provide good solid evidence that the meaning of baptism is broader than submersion.

As for 99% of the ritual cleansing being dipping or submersion, really Dean, you should know better than that. Please don't just make things up.

No one has given a reasonable explanation for why those are mistaken nor why they should be discounted. No matter how many times someone writes baptism equal immersion I will know it's just someone repeating a myth, I had thought maybe there was something solid behind it.

Marv

[DeaconDean]

Is "Sirach" in the canon?

Nuff said.

"baptizw - 1 pers. sg. pres. act. indic., fut. baptisw, aor. ebaptisqhn, perf. pass., pr. to dip, immerse, to cleanse or purify by washing; to administer the rite of baptism, to baptize; met. with with various reference to the ideas associated with Christian baptism as an act of dedication, e.g., marked designation, devotion, trial, etc., mid. to procure baptism for one's self, to undergo baptism"

The New Anaylitcal Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Perschbacher, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass., 01962, Copyright 1990, Ninth Printing, 2006, baptizw, p. 66

That is what I believe.

And given the times the pitcures are drawn, to come out as a Christian would be to almost surely die. That is why most went "underground."

not many rivers underground in the Mid-East.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[sageoffools]

Boy Dean you sure can miss a point. I'm not saying the Apocrypha is scripture. What I'm saying is that in Sirach, which was originally written in Greek, not translated to Greek, the author uses the word for baptism where we clearly know he is talking about the person being sprinkled clean. It is proof that in the language of the day, the word for baptism included sprinkling. We see in the case where Jesus was expected to wash his hands it includes pouring as well. And the baptism unto Moses is called pouring as well certainly not submersion, certainly baptism.

And I would note that Noah and his family prefigured baptism as well, they were sprinkled or poured on, it was the unsaved who were submerged.

And the early pictures from the catacombs show pouring not submersion.
Many of the posts seems to be from the standpoint that if submersion is included that excluded pouring and sprinkling. I have no reason to discount the bible nor really the Apocrypha as to the meaning at the time. They both provide good solid evidence that the meaning of baptism is broader than submersion.

As for 99% of the ritual cleansing being dipping or submersion, really Dean, you should know better than that. Please don't just make things up.

No one has given a reasonable explanation for why those are mistaken nor why they should be discounted. No matter how many times someone writes baptism equal immersion I will know it's just someone repeating a myth, I had thought maybe there was something solid behind it.

Marv

Norsk, I think that you are looking into this way to much. Baptism equals submersion because baptism means submersion. The problem is that the original KJV translators were Anglican. The Anglicans do not submerge when they baptize, so they could not translate it submerge. However, they could not, in good conscience, translate it "sprinkling" so they simply changed the Greek word into English, giving us baptize.
This question is like saying how do you know "running" means to go fast, or "sinking" means to go under water. They mean those things because they mean those things. Those are the definitions of those words. Just like "to submerge" is the definition of "baptize", despite how you think you can twist any Scripture to fit your belief.
People often have this question about tithe. "How do you know a tithe is a tenth, or ten percent" well, how do you know deci- is a tenth? because it is. Tithe means one-tenth, just like deci- means one-tenth. You cannot have a 5% tithe, that would be like having a 5%10%, it doesn't make any sense.
This same thing is true with baptism. You cannot have a "sprinkling, submerged" It doesn't make any sense.

[Epiphoskei]

As much as I still disagree with the belief that baptism in the New Testament refers to sprinkling, Norsk has a point here that you two seem not willing to touch on. If it can be shown that the word baptidzo was ever used in any context - scriptural, apocryphal, or downright secular - to refer to an act of sprinkling in the second temple period, then you cannot simply assert that the definition of the word means to immerse.

Because lexical definitions are derived from how a word is used in a corpus of texts, to respond to an argument that a lexical definition is unfaithful to the corpus by quoting the lexical definition is begging the question.

[BigNorsk]

Is "Sirach" in the canon?

Nuff said.

"baptizw - 1 pers. sg. pres. act. indic., fut. baptisw, aor. ebaptisqhn, perf. pass., pr. to dip, immerse, to cleanse or purify by washing; to administer the rite of baptism, to baptize; met. with with various reference to the ideas associated with Christian baptism as an act of dedication, e.g., marked designation, devotion, trial, etc., mid. to procure baptism for one's self, to undergo baptism"

The New Anaylitcal Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Perschbacher, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass., 01962, Copyright 1990, Ninth Printing, 2006, baptizw, p. 66

That is what I believe.

And given the times the pitcures are drawn, to come out as a Christian would be to almost surely die. That is why most went "underground."

not many rivers underground in the Mid-East.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Is the The New Anaylitcal Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Perschbacher, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass., 01962, Copyright 1990, Ninth Printing, 2006, part of the canon? If you don't care how someone during biblical times uses a word, why should we turn to nonscripture today.

General references are fine works, but realize that the amount of work to get every word right is really beyond them.

Let's take the already quoted Strong's, I will use it just as it has been used for baptism only with a different word.

Let's do G1080 gennao as used in reference to Jesus in this verse. Act 13:33 kjv
(33) God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

G1080
γεννάω
gennaō
ghen-nah'-o
From a variation of G1085; to procreate (properly of the father, but by extension of the mother); figuratively to regenerate: - bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, be delivered of, gender, make, spring.

According to Strong, gennao means to make. Therefore using Strong's, Jesus was made by the Father and so was a created being. Simple straightforward and wrong. Much like many people's Greek is where they take a couple of classes, learn basic definitions and then what they were taught becomes more of an authority than what is plain in front of their nose.

Sirach shows that the usage of the word baptizo at the time the Bible was written included sprinkling. If someone writes a book now and says it doesn't that just means they didn't do their homework on that word. They are probably a good general authority but they just haven't really worked on that word, probably just took what someone else said before them.

In any case there is even a New Testment reference that is clearly including sprinkling in the meaning of baptism.

It's in Hebrews chapter 9. Heb 9:10 NET.
(10) They served only for matters of food and drink and various washings; they are external regulations imposed until the new order came.

Washings translates the word baptismos, a baptism. The text then goes on to enumerate several of these baptism.

Heb 9:13 NET.
(13) For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a young cow sprinkled on those who are defiled consecrated them and provided ritual purity,

Heb 9:18-19 NET.
(18) So even the first covenant was inaugurated with blood.
(19) For when Moses had spoken every command to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats with water and scarlet wool and hyssop and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,

Heb 9:21 NET.
(21) And both the tabernacle and all the utensils of worship he likewise sprinkled with blood.

It would be an extremely difficult reading of the text not to include these sprinklings in the various baptisms the author is speaking of.

Marv

[DeaconDean]

Is the The New Anaylitcal Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Perschbacher, Hendrickson Publishing, Peabody, Mass., 01962, Copyright 1990, Ninth Printing, 2006, part of the canon? If you don't care how someone during biblical times uses a word, why should we turn to nonscripture today.

General references are fine works, but realize that the amount of work to get every word right is really beyond them.

Let's take the already quoted Strong's, I will use it just as it has been used for baptism only with a different word.

Let's do G1080 gennao as used in reference to Jesus in this verse. Act 13:33 kjv
(33) God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

G1080
γεννάω
gennaō
ghen-nah'-o
From a variation of G1085; to procreate (properly of the father, but by extension of the mother); figuratively to regenerate: - bear, beget, be born, bring forth, conceive, be delivered of, gender, make, spring.

According to Strong, gennao means to make. Therefore using Strong's, Jesus was made by the Father and so was a created being. Simple straightforward and wrong. Much like many people's Greek is where they take a couple of classes, learn basic definitions and then what they were taught becomes more of an authority than what is plain in front of their nose.

Sirach shows that the usage of the word baptizo at the time the Bible was written included sprinkling. If someone writes a book now and says it doesn't that just means they didn't do their homework on that word. They are probably a good general authority but they just haven't really worked on that word, probably just took what someone else said before them.

In any case there is even a New Testment reference that is clearly including sprinkling in the meaning of baptism.

It's in Hebrews chapter 9. Heb 9:10 NET.
(10) They served only for matters of food and drink and various washings; they are external regulations imposed until the new order came.

Washings translates the word baptismos, a baptism. The text then goes on to enumerate several of these baptism.

Heb 9:13 NET.
(13) For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a young cow sprinkled on those who are defiled consecrated them and provided ritual purity,

Heb 9:18-19 NET.
(18) So even the first covenant was inaugurated with blood.
(19) For when Moses had spoken every command to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and goats with water and scarlet wool and hyssop and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people,

Heb 9:21 NET.
(21) And both the tabernacle and all the utensils of worship he likewise sprinkled with blood.

It would be an extremely difficult reading of the text not to include these sprinklings in the various baptisms the author is speaking of.

Marv

Marv, I have already told you that I give no merit to any Apcryophia writting. So please stop quoting from it.

If you want to discuss this from the 66 books of the Bible, then yes.

Now, you seem to equate "sprinkling" with baptism for some odd reason. You use Hebrews 9:13 in the above quote, here, I must say again, you are wrong.

"ei gar to aima tragwn kai taurwn kai spodoV damalewV rantizousa touV kekoinwmenouV agiazei proV thn thV sarkoV kaqarothta," -Heb. 9:13 (GNT)

The word you are referencing here as equal to baptism is: "rantizousa" and unless I'm mistaken, Strongs number 4472. Here this word means:

1) to sprinkle
2) to cleanse by sprinkling, hence to purify, cleanse

http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G4472&Version=KJV

And here in Hebrews, the context is in reference to sprinkling of the blood of bulls and goats upon the altar, not the person.

Let me quote Arthur Pink:


"Forif the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of Christ" (verses 13, 14). Having again demonstrated the pre-eminency of our Priest in verses 11, 12, the apostle now exhibits the superior efficacy of His sacrifice. By a synecdoche all sacrifices of expiation and all ordinances of purification appointed under the law are here summarized: the blood of lambs, etc., being included. The particular reference in the "ashes of an heifer" being to Numbers 19:2-17, with which should be carefully compared John 13:1-15. It is principally the use of the ordinance of Numbers 19 which is here in view. An heifer having been burned, its ashes were preserved, that, being mixed with pure water, they might be sprinkled on persons who had become legally unclean. When an Israelite, through contact with death, became ceremonially defiled, he was cut off from all the public worship of Jehovah; but when he carried out the instructions of Numbers 19 he was restored.
Those "ashes," then, were a most merciful provision of God; without them, all acceptable worship had soon ceased. They had an efficacy, for they availed to the purifying of the flesh, which was a temporary, external and ceremonial cleansing. Typically, they pointed to that spiritual, inward and eternal cleansing which the blood of Christ provides. "The defilements which befall believers are many, and some of them unavoidable whilst they live in this world: yea, the best of their services have defilements adhering to them. Were it not that the blood of Christ, in its purifying virtue, is in a continual readiness unto faith, that God therein had opened a fountain for sin and uncleanness, the worship of the church would not be acceptable unto Him. In a constant application thereunto, doth the exercise of faith much consist" (John Owen).
"How much more shall the blood of Christ," etc. If the blood and ashes of beasts, under the appointment of God, were efficacious unto an external and temporary justification and sanctification—that is, the removal of both guilt and ceremonial pollution—how much more shall the sacrifice of Him who was promised of old, was the Anointed and therefore the One ordained and accepted of God, effectually and eternally cleanse those to whom it is applied
"The blood of Christ is comprehensive of all that He did and suffered in order unto our redemption, inasmuch as the shedding of it was the way and means whereby He offered Himself (in and by it) unto God" (John Owen).


http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Hebrews/hebrews_041.htm (http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Hebrews/hebrews_041.htm)

The same Greek word is used in Heb. 9:18-19 and 21.

All these references were to cleansing of the altar, temple, temple utensils, the word, and in spite the fact that there is a reference to "sprinkling" of the people, John Gill comments:

"And sprinkled both the book, and all the people.
In (Exodus 24:8 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=ex+24:8)) no mention is made of the sprinkling of the former, only of the latter, which the apostle either concludes from the sprinkling of the blood upon the altar, upon which the book might lie, or from tradition, or from divine revelation: some think it does not necessarily follow from the text, that the book was sprinkled; and repeating the word (labwn) , "he took", read the words, "and he took the book and sprinkled all the people"; but this seems not natural, but forced; and besides, all the Oriental versions are express for the sprinkling of the book: the book of the law was sprinkled, not because of any impurity in it, but to show the imperfection of it, and its insufficiency to justify men; or rather the imperfection of man's obedience to it, and to point out what the law requires in case of disobedience, even the blood and life of men; and what it would be, was it not sprinkled with blood, or satisfied by the blood of Christ, namely, an accusing, cursing, and condemning law: the people, all of them, being sprinkled with the blood, were typical of God's peculiar people, even all the elect of God, being sprinkled with the blood of Christ, called the blood of sprinkling, by which they are redeemed, and which speaks peace and pardon to them. Some have thought only the seventy elders were sprinkled, as representing the whole congregation; and others, that the twelve pillars were only sprinkled, as representing the twelve tribes of Israel; but Moses and the apostle agree, that they were the people that were sprinkled."

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GillsExpositionoftheBible/gil.cgi?book=heb&chapter=009&verse=019&next=020&prev=018 (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GillsExpositionoftheBible/gil.cgi?book=heb&chapter=009&verse=019&next=020&prev=018)

And for the life of me, how can one infer that Strongs Number 907, and Strongs Number 4472 are saying the same thing?

The process of sprinkling described in Hebrews, is the same that was described of "purifying" the temple and all the devices in the holy-of-holies. They had to be "free of polution" (cf. Heb. 10:22, Strongs Number 4472).

Fact, baptism does not purify us, sprinkling does not purify us. Least wise as is described in Hebrews. Even after salvation, we still carry the seed of sin within us. (1 John 1:8-9)

The only day in which we will ever be purified, is the day Jesus comes, and:

"but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." -1 Jn. 3:2 (KJV)

Sorry, but I cannot accept your use of "sprinkling" in Hebrews, (Strongs Number 4472) to equate out with baptism.

And, when we are in church, now I don't know if the Lutherans use it or not, but in my Baptist church, we sing praises to God about how we have been "washed in the blood."

Are You Washed in the Blood of the Lamb

Have you been to Jesus for the cleansing power?
Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?
Are you fully trusting in His grace this hour?
Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?

Refrain
Are you washed in the blood,
In the soul cleansing blood of the Lamb?
Are your garments spotless? Are they white as snow?
Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?

Are you walking daily by the Savior’s side?
Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?
Do you rest each moment in the Crucified?
Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?

Refrain

When the Bridegroom cometh will your robes be white?
Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?
Will your soul be ready for the mansions bright,
And be washed in the blood of the Lamb?

Refrain

Lay aside the garments that are stained with sin,
And be washed in the blood of the Lamb;
There’s a fountain flowing for the soul unclean,
O be washed in the blood of the Lamb!

Words and Music by: Elisha A. Hoffman, 1878, Originally published in: Spirital Songs for Gospel Meetings and the Sunday School (Cleveland, Ohio: Barker & Smell;ie, 1878)
All this speaks of nothing but, being immersed in the blood of Jesus, and immersed in the water.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Epiphoskei]

Marv, I have already told you that I give no merit to any Apcryophia writting. So please stop quoting from it.

I really think you misunderstand what he's trying to argue here. Your argument is that the word Baptidzo only has a possible translation of immerse or submerge. This requires that all usages of the word in the entire corpus of greek literature - scripture, apocrypha, secular literature, right on down to grocery lists - each and every such occurance needs to be only possibly "immerse." Apocrypha isn't scripture, but how it uses words still matters when we decide how to translate our words.

This is why solid arguments for immersion are almost always based on culture and history, not on word studies.

[DeaconDean]

I tell you guys what, since I'm being made the one at fault here, I'll just bow out of this discussion.

But before I go, let me say this,

In the New Testament, the Greek word baptizw is used some 65 times.

Matthew 8
Mark 9
Luke 8
John 11
Acts 19
Romans 1
1 Corinthians 8
Galatians 1
Total 65


And in each and every case, it means:


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 overwhelmhttp://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=907&version=kjv

And yet, I'm being made the one who is wrong.

Fine.

Through several posts, I have conceeded the fact, that the mode one is baptized is not the important part, but rather, what is important is the obedience to Jesus' command.

And still, I'm being made out the one who is wrong.

Fine.

I have been made out to be wrong because I do not give any merit to the Apcryophia.

Fine.

The fact still remains, the Greek word used some 65 times in the NT still means to dip or immerse.

And to the best of my knowledge, unless you are Catholic, any other method of baptism is accepted in the Baptist church. We don't believe that baptism is a requirement for salvation.

We sing songs about being washed in Jesus' blood. The book of Revelation speaks to the martyred saints who have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb.

And I'm still being made out to be the one who's wrong.

Fine.

Since I'm totally wrong on the whole deal, I'll bow out of this discussion.

I'll let you guy's carry on who are far more learned than I.

But before I go, let me also say that the NT teaches baptism by immersion, the Greek word for baptize is dip or immerse, the SBC teaches baptism by immersion, that is what I believe, and that is what I'll teach, until the day the Lord returns and rewards me for it, for takes my reward away for teaching wrongly.

And since I'm so wrong, I ask that you forget anything I have said in here.

Expect no further replies from me.

I'm outta here and unsubscribing from this thread.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Project 86]

I totally agree with you. I have been learning Greek and I think you are right on when it comes to the proper way way of determining the meaning of a Greek word.

I tell you guys what, since I'm being made the one at fault here, I'll just bow out of this discussion.

But before I go, let me say this,

In the New Testament, the Greek word baptizw is used some 65 times.

Matthew 8
Mark 9
Luke 8
John 11
Acts 19
Romans 1
1 Corinthians 8
Galatians 1
Total 65


And in each and every case, it means:

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 overwhelmhttp://bible1.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=907&version=kjv

And yet, I'm being made the one who is wrong.

Fine.

Through several posts, I have conceeded the fact, that the mode one is baptized is not the important part, but rather, what is important is the obedience to Jesus' command.

And still, I'm being made out the one who is wrong.

Fine.

I have been made out to be wrong because I do not give any merit to the Apcryophia.

Fine.

The fact still remains, the Greek word used some 65 times in the NT still means to dip or immerse.

And to the best of my knowledge, unless you are Catholic, any other method of baptism is accepted in the Baptist church. We don't believe that baptism is a requirement for salvation.

We sing songs about being washed in Jesus' blood. The book of Revelation speaks to the martyred saints who have washed their robes in the blood of the Lamb.

And I'm still being made out to be the one who's wrong.

Fine.

Since I'm totally wrong on the whole deal, I'll bow out of this discussion.

I'll let you guy's carry on who are far more learned than I.

But before I go, let me also say that the NT teaches baptism by immersion, the Greek word for baptize is dip or immerse, the SBC teaches baptism by immersion, that is what I believe, and that is what I'll teach, until the day the Lord returns and rewards me for it, for takes my reward away for teaching wrongly.

And since I'm so wrong, I ask that you forget anything I have said in here.

Expect no further replies from me.

I'm outta here and unsubscribing from this thread.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[BigNorsk]

When I think of word study, I think of the type of thing that in the case of baptizo, was done extensively by James W. Dale in the 1800's, he spent 20 years studying the word and published a four volume set (still available today) They are Baptizo:Volume 1: Classic Baptism: And Inquiry into the Meaning of Baptizo by the Usage of the Classical Greek Writers, 354pp; Baptizo Volume 2: Judaic Baptism: An Inquiry into the Meanion of Baptizo as Determined by the Usage of Jewish and Patristic Writers, 400pp.; Baptizo Volume 3: Johannic Baptism: An Inquiry into the meaning of Baptizo as determined by the usage in the Holy Scripture, 428 pp; Baptizo Volume 4: Christic Baptism and Patristic Baptism: An Inquiry into the Meaning of Baptizo in the Holy Sriptures and Patristic Writings, 670pp.


In those 4 volumes done in the mid 1800's he looked at literally every single known usage of the word , baptizo. There have been a few more found since then, but to this date his would still be the definitive work.

And they are still available. One might think that they would cost a lot but photocopy reproductions were available of all 4 for as little as $40. And any good seminary library would have better quality copies I would assume.

They completely destroy the very idea that baptizo equals immersion. It's just plain flat out not the case. It's been easily available for over 150 years along with many other smaller works that proof well beyond any reasonable doubt that baptizo does not equal immersion and so it seems strange to me that Baptists, who often seem to pride themselves on their scholarship, continue to teach as a given fact that baptizo equals immersion when such is beyond belief.

I'd really like to know why? Is it because teaching the truth is one quick way to be out the door and ignored by the Baptists? Are the congregations that grew up learning and listening to the mistaken idea are just not willing to give up their folk theology for the real truth?

I don't know, I thank all who participated, I had thought maybe I was overlooking something but if so, it didn't come to light.

Thanks again.

Marv


And if someone has some insight, I would still love to hear it. I'm not like close the thread we're done here. I know the early Anabaptists practices baptism through pouring and so did everyone else until the Particular Baptists came along and then it all seemed to change. At least that's what I've been able to find. And I can kind of understand the mistakes from the standpoint of if you really didn't know the original languages, the fact that some cases of the word baptizo were translated and others were transliterated sort of hides the variety of meanings. So I can see how the mistake got going. I'm just trying to figure out why the mistake continues.

Thanks again.

[prgallo]

I'd really like to know why? Is it because teaching the truth is one quick way to be out the door and ignored by the Baptists? Are the congregations that grew up learning and listening to the mistaken idea are just not willing to give up their folk theology for the real truth?


Because you declare what is truth doesn't make it truth and because you reject all the answers doesn't make them wrong. Likewise, the truth isn't bought for $40, but you are free you think what you will.

You asked what Baptist believed regarding baptism, it was answered many many times.

I suspect your true intent is made clear in the quoted text above, just to pick a fight and be rude.

ttyl

[BigNorsk]

I did not ask what Baptists believe, I asked why they believe it. There is quite a difference. I appears the answer is because people that the Baptists generally trust or rely on have said so, though that was never specifically stated.

And of course because I state something does not make it so, please don't set that strawman up.


Marv

[prgallo]

Just wondering what the fruit is from intentional offensiveness...

[BigNorsk]

I don't know what the fruit would be. The Law offends people yet it prepares the way for the Gospel.

Do you find it offensive because I speculate a bit about the possible history or motives for why the obvious mistake persists? I was trying to stimulate a response. Surely someone knows their history a bit as to why and who were the first teachers of such and why they taught so? Or did that disappear in the Particular Baptist's rendition of history? (There I go again, fishing)

Or is it that you find it offensive that I state the obvious as obvious? It bothers me when I see a group of teachers that I as a rule respect, and yet, they continue to teach a mistake. It bothers me that such a group that places the Bible so highly and rightly so, would seem so blind to what is easily seen to be not true, as I showed during this thread. It bothers me because it makes me concerned about the other things they teach. Doesn't it bother you?

I mean how does one ignore any reasonable word study and weave instead a proof of picking a little here and there and come to a dogmatic type conclusion that baptizo equals immersion? For that, the proof is in the word and in order to make such a statement it has to be true all the time, not mostly, not sometimes, all the time. It's a conclusion that doesn't stand up to any significant study. I mean really a couple of days would be enough with the tools scholars have today. And yet I don't see someone come out much and say they have studied it and they were wrong.

Maybe it's too wrapped up in the whole Baptist doctrines of baptism. That it does not bestow grace, that credobaptism is the standard and so on. I don't know.

I do see that there seems to be a bit of a movement going on where more and more Baptist congregations do not require those who where previously baptized to be rebaptized, so that's an indication that something is going on someplace, but where? I know John Piper's church has been moving around on it. It looked for awhile that they were going to go all the way, but then John Piper kind of pulled back to I am a Baptist. He's a fellow I respect deeply, I don't know what happened.

In any case it seems to be happening in multiple places. Maybe scholarship is starting to have an effect on Baptist Tradition?

Marv

[Project 86]

I do see that there seems to be a bit of a movement going on where more and more Baptist congregations do not require those who where previously baptized to be rebaptized, so that's an indication that something is going on someplace, but where? I know John Piper's church has been moving around on it. It looked for awhile that they were going to go all the way, but then John Piper kind of pulled back to I am a Baptist. He's a fellow I respect deeply, I don't know what happened.

I have gone to Piper's church and live in the same city area as he. He belongs to the same Baptist group as the University/Seminary my wife got her Masters from. That being said I know a good amount about what Piper has been saying and I'm glad they have not said they will take members that didn't have a believer's Baptism. Of course if he did do that I'm sure the conference he belongs too would frown upon him (they probably wouldn't kick him out since they allow for Open Theism). Believer's baptism is one of the key marks of a Baptist. The Bible teaches clearly that all believers (not babies) ought to be baptized. Baptist churches allow for believer's baptisms in other churches but if you are baptized as a baby that doesn't count. We don't believe Baptism plays any part in salvation but we believe it is demanded of God. If you are willful disobedient to God then you can't be a member. That doesn't mean you can't attend the church.

[BigNorsk]

In 2005 I know the elders of Piper's church put forward a proposal that would have allowed those who had been baptized as infants and for whom being rebaptized would have been an act of rebellion against God in their understanding, as full members of the congregation.

I'm not sure how that went over though, I don't know if it passed, I'm kind of thinking it didn't but like I say, I don't know.

So anyway, that's the type of movement I am talking about.

[Epiphoskei]

It didn't pass. Baptists can take a lot of positions on the mode of Baptism (though immersion by reclining the person backwards into the water once is the dominant mode. There's also been a tradition that's three times frontwards into the water), but I'm pretty sure that baptists by definition pretty much have to believe that infant baptism is not baptism at all.

[BigNorsk]

Isn't it kind of a Baptist belief that baptism isn't really much of anything whether the person is an infant or an adult believer?

We kind of talked about mode a lot in this thread but if you study baptism the basic thing in the Bible is when something baptizes something else, that which is baptized is changed. Yet Baptists say it is just a memorial service for that which has already happened.

You can even see that in the example used about the cucumber being bapto or dipped in boiling water and then baptized or immersed in vinegar. In both cases the cucumber is changed, in Baptist theology, the cucumber must become a pickle first, and then it would be dipped in boiling water and immersed in vinegar in memory of becoming a pickle.

Marv

[Project 86]

Isn't it kind of a Baptist belief that baptism isn't really much of anything whether the person is an infant or an adult believer?

We kind of talked about mode a lot in this thread but if you study baptism the basic thing in the Bible is when something baptizes something else, that which is baptized is changed. Yet Baptists say it is just a memorial service for that which has already happened.

You can even see that in the example used about the cucumber being bapto or dipped in boiling water and then baptized or immersed in vinegar. In both cases the cucumber is changed, in Baptist theology, the cucumber must become a pickle first, and then it would be dipped in boiling water and immersed in vinegar in memory of becoming a pickle.

Marv

Baptism is a big deal to Baptists because it is a command from God. That is why most Baptist churches won't allow you to be a member unless you have been baptized as an adult (since infants can't have saving faith). The Baptism doesn't change you, placing your faith in Jesus as your Lord and Savior is what saves you and make you a new person.

[TexasSky]

It is actually a lot simpler than most of you are making it.

The words are synonyms in the english language, and the PROPER Dictionary defintions the word "Immersion" include""baptism performed by totally submerging a person in water, and "sinking until covered with water."

The proper dictionary definition of the word submerse is "sinking until covered with water."

The words have the same meaning in the english language.

[Epiphoskei]

It's a bit more complecated than that.

The New Testament is a Greek book. We need Greek definitions of Greek words. Although Baptists believe that immersion was the only known mode of baptism until the early second century and thus the only mode that should be used, you cannot derive this only from the meaning of the Greek word either.

[TexasSky]

It's a bit more complecated than that.

The New Testament is a Greek book. We need Greek definitions of Greek words. Although Baptists believe that immersion was the only known mode of baptism until the early second century and thus the only mode that should be used, you cannot derive this only from the meaning of the Greek word either.
I understand that the Greek is different, however, the question was why do Baptists use the words the way they do, and the answer to why Baptists use the words that way is because the average English-Speaking Baptist believes the words have the same meaning.

If you wish to go back to the Greek:

Matthew 3:6 "And were baptized in the Jordan, confessing their sins."
The Greek used is ebaptizonto
That is the imperfect tense, which in Greek usually means a repeated action. In this useage it is past tense.

Ebaptizonto means "to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge" It is most often seen when referring to ships that sank.

It is also used in the Greek to mean, "To clean by dipping and submergining."

Matthew 3:13, "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto to John, to be baptized of him."
That uses baptisqhanai.
This is another tense of the same word listed above.

It is used again in Matthew 3:14, and 3:16.

Skip ahead to Matthew 28:19.
"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."

The original Greek uses "baptizontev" here again.

[Epiphoskei]

When an imperfect is indicating repetition as this one does (as opposed to continual action or beginning of action, two other possibilities), it means somthing like "repeatedly, he was baptizing," not "he was dipping repeatedly." It has to do with the repetition of individual actions, not the duration of an individual action.

Additionally, there is the matter that the septuagint uses Baptidzo to refer to priestly ritutals that the hebrew text indicates were done by sprinkling. It seems that baptidzo by the first century could refer to any ritual washing, regardless of mode. It is the case that Christian baptism was always by immersion, but the word baptism does not necesarraly imply immersion by definition alone.

[TexasSky]

When an imperfect is indicating repetition as this one does (as opposed to continual action or beginning of action, two other possibilities), it means somthing like "repeatedly, he was baptizing," not "he was dipping repeatedly." It has to do with the repetition of individual actions, not the duration of an individual action.

Additionally, there is the matter that the septuagint uses Baptidzo to refer to priestly ritutals that the hebrew text indicates were done by sprinkling. It seems that baptidzo by the first century could refer to any ritual washing, regardless of mode. It is the case that Christian baptism was always by immersion, but the word baptism does not necesarraly imply immersion by definition alone.
I fear that you are mistaken.
It is in imperfect past tense in that particular verse.
As I showed, in other verses, it is not even the imperfect tense of the words.

It means submerge in the original Greek root.

When it appears in the past tense, it means "repeatedly they dipped."

[BigNorsk]

TexasSky,

I can see now where immersion and submersion have basically transformed to become pretty well equivalent in the English language.

That doesn't mean though that one should leap to saying that the various word roots of baptism equal immersion or submersion even though lots of Baptist lexicons say they do.

Take the baptism into Moses when God baptized the entire nation of Israel as they walked across the Red Sea. 1 Cor 10:2. The Israelites were not immersed, they had water poured or you could say sprinkled since it is clearly a reference to rain. Psalm 77:17

The mode of baptism was pouring or sprinkling. The Egyptians were immersed or submerged. Clearly the meaning of the word baptism in 1 Cor 10:2 is not immersion nor submersion based on scripture. That really ends the arguement as far as I am concerned.

I can see how the knowledge was lost for a time. And indeed, the root word did start out with a a meaning of dipping. Of course words change and clearly the usage of the words which we transliterate for baptism were of much wider meaning than just immersion at the time the bible was written.

The basic meaning in both bapto and baptizo and the other words for baptism from the words that are somewhat similar is that the object is changed by the baptism. That of course goes against baptist doctrine as well, but what you find consistently in the meaning of baptism is baptism changes that which received the baptism. It is not symbolically representing something. The object is changed, by that which baptized it.

So the real meaning is to have something applied, the bible uses both water and blood for baptisms, and the person is changed by the baptism. Having their sins washed away, being made whiter than snow, being installed as a priest, etc. But always changed.

Marv

[DeaconDean]

TexasSky,

I can see now where immersion and submersion have basically transformed to become pretty well equivalent in the English language.

That doesn't mean though that one should leap to saying that the various word roots of baptism equal immersion or submersion even though lots of Baptist lexicons say they do.

Take the baptism into Moses when God baptized the entire nation of Israel as they walked across the Red Sea. 1 Cor 10:2. The Israelites were not immersed, they had water poured or you could say sprinkled since it is clearly a reference to rain. Psalm 77:17

The mode of baptism was pouring or sprinkling. The Egyptians were immersed or submerged. Clearly the meaning of the word baptism in 1 Cor 10:2 is not immersion nor submersion based on scripture. That really ends the arguement as far as I am concerned.

I can see how the knowledge was lost for a time. And indeed, the root word did start out with a a meaning of dipping. Of course words change and clearly the usage of the words which we transliterate for baptism were of much wider meaning than just immersion at the time the bible was written.

The basic meaning in both bapto and baptizo and the other words for baptism from the words that are somewhat similar is that the object is changed by the baptism. That of course goes against baptist doctrine as well, but what you find consistently in the meaning of baptism is baptism changes that which received the baptism. It is not symbolically representing something. The object is changed, by that which baptized it.

So the real meaning is to have something applied, the bible uses both water and blood for baptisms, and the person is changed by the baptism. Having their sins washed away, being made whiter than snow, being installed as a priest, etc. But always changed.

Marv

Baptists believe as the lexicons say, immersion, so why are you arguing against Baptist doctrine?

We're not Lutheran, so we do not believe in sprinkling.

Hum...

God Bless

Till all are one.

[DeaconDean]

Lets look at Acts 2:38, let me say:

The Greek reads:

"petroV de proV autouV, metanohsate, [fhsin,] kai baptisqhtw ekastoV umwn epi tw onomati ihsou cristou eiV afesin twn amartiwn umwn, kai lhmyesqe thn dwrean tou agiou pneumatoV:" -Acts 2:38 (GNT)

The word to be concerned with here is "baptisqhtw".

Now I will not define what this word means because we all know what Baptizo means. Rather, we should look at the other elements involved with this word.

baptisqhtw is listed as being "3rd person (he/she/it), singular, aorist, (fixed point in time reference, "The Aorist is said to be "simple occurrence" or "summary occurrence", without regard for the amount of time taken to accomplish the action. This tense is also often referred to as the 'punctiliar' tense. 'Punctiliar' in this sense means 'viewed as a single, collective whole,' a "one-point-in-time" action, although it may actually take place over a period of time. In the indicative mood the aorist tense denotes action that occurred in the past time, often translated like the English simple past tense,

http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm#AORIST (http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm#AORIST)),

Passive, (does play an active role), and imperfect, (Imperfect Tense The imperfect tense shows continuous or linear type of action just like the present tense. It always indicates an action continually or repeatedly happening in past time. It portrays the action as going on for some extended period of time in the past.
The idea of continual action in the past does not apply when the verb "to be" is in the imperfect tense. There it should be considered a simple action happening in past time, without regard to its "on-going" or "repeated happening" in the past.

http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm#IMPERFECT (http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/verbs1.htm#IMPERFECT).)

Simply put, these individuals were baptized because of repenting and believing. Not because it was a requirement for salavtion.

I have said it before in our discussion, the mode is not as important as the obedience to Jesus' command to be baptized.

So why you are you in here arguing against Baptist beliefs?

You have had your question answered many times by others.

Why do Baptists think immersion equals submersion? Because the Greek word says so, thats why!

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Epiphoskei]

It means submerge in the original Greek root.
Roots are not nearly as relevant as context, and the septuagint clearly shows that the Jews of the second temple period considered the word interchangeable with both submerge and sprinkle. Context is the only basis we can base any argument upon, not supposed roots.


When it appears in the past tense, it means "repeatedly they dipped."
And in context you can take that to mean that they were repeatedly dipping the large numbers of peoples, not dipping one person repeatedly. You can't make a credobaptist argument out of this.

Context, not a words study, is what we need here. Word studies simply do not work nearly as well as most modern (American) Christians believe they do.

[BigNorsk]

Baptists believe as the lexicons say, immersion, so why are you arguing against Baptist doctrine?

We're not Lutheran, so we do not believe in sprinkling.

Hum...

God Bless

Till all are one.

Well I thought Baptists believed in sola Scriptura, and I've been trying to reconcile that with the positions that
Baptists so adamantly maintain even though scripture clearly doesn't agree with them. So far, it would seem Baptists are sola Baptist Lexicons since it seems that you chose the lexicons over scripture.

I can understand how that would happen when as a group the Baptists moved around and lost the understanding of scripture. It really looks like the Baptist doctrines on baptism really hinge on the way translators transliterated many of the occurances of baptism in the Bible and translated others. Over time things change.

One example of that is immersion and submersion. While root meanings are quite similar, immersion had and to some degree still has a wider meaning than submersion.

For instance immersion means to involve oneself fully, like he immersed himself in his work. Or you can be immersed in a relationship. It also means to fully whelm with water (or other things), not necessarily by submersion. You can be immersed in a rain shower. Immersed in a waterfall. And so on. It is an example where the word is broader than it's root meaning would seem to be. Submersion is more specific in it's meaning.

So if we look to the baptism into Moses again, one could say the Israelites were immersed, fully whelmed, but it would not be correct to say they were submerged. They were not submerged, the Egyptians were. The mode of their immersion was by God pouring out rain from the clouds. They were immersed in the rain. But they were not submerged.

Hence my original question.

The words for baptism are, like immersion, broader in meaning than only submersion, as has been repeatedly pointed out by me from scripture. Since scripture isn't the source, I was wondering what was. Maybe it's a misunderstanding of scripture, maybe something else. If you know the history of the doctrine within the Baptists, I would appreciate hearing of it.

Marv

[DeaconDean]

http://www.christcenteredforums.com/forum/images/smilies/duh.gifhttp://www.christcenteredforums.com/forum/images/smilies/duh.gifhttp://www.christcenteredforums.com/forum/images/smilies/duh.gifhttp://www.christcenteredforums.com/forum/images/smilies/duh.gifhttp://www.christcenteredforums.com/forum/images/smilies/duh.gif

[BigNorsk]

Wouldn't a simple "I don't know" be more appropriate?

Marv

[eldermike]

We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” Romans 6:4

It's not hard to understand buried. You can't see what's buried.

[BigNorsk]

Burial symbolism is why the Greek Orthodox baptize the infant face down, the same way people were buried.

Marv

[DeaconDean]

I think this thread has gone far enough.

Principles have been given and rejected.

I think this thread has gone about as far as it can go.

God Bless

Till all are one.