Many watery baptisms.

WilliamC · Feb 15, 2024

Xeno.of.athens said:
Do you mean that what you wrote was a "bling quote"?

I gave Bling credit for his Scriptural quotes.

tampasteve · Feb 16, 2024

Xeno.of.athens said:
You write as if Judaism as it is now is the same as Judaism in Jesus' day; it isn't. When Jesus was walking the Earth the temple had priests, sacrifices, and was obedient to the Law's sacrificial requirements, Judaism nowadays has no temple, makes no sacrifices, and is in open and blatant disobedience to the Law's sacrificial requirements. "Mikvah" just isn't relevant unless there is some direct evidence that John the Baptist and Jesus intended baptism to be an extension of a mikvah. So, your explanation is back in the territory of speculation and far away from exegesis.

Agreed.

I am quite aware of the differences between today's Rabbinic and Karaite Judaism in contrast with the different streams present in the 1st century. I am also quite aware of the practices that were common based in scripture and Jewish tradition at the time. In all due respect I am probably much more versed in the traditions of the 1st century than you are.

Mikvah is highly relevant as it is/was a practice, done, used and common in the 1st century. If it were not then people would have found what John was doing to be incredibly strange, they did not as it would have been common to use the Jordan for Mikvah use. Again though, I am not saying that they are the same, if anything Baptism is more related to circumcision. What I am trying to convey is that they are similar, and the act would have been familiar to Jews of the time due to a custom they were used to doing. This custom required/s full immersion.

The Liturgist · Feb 16, 2024

bling said:
I knew a Catholic priest who baptized adult believer by immersion in water members of his congregation, even encouraging those previously baptized as a baby, so was he wrong to do so?

Yes. Baptism is not supposed to be repeated. Indeed thats why the Nicene Creed says “i confess one baptism for the remission of sins”

The Liturgist · Feb 16, 2024

bling said:
Strong's #907: baptizo (pronounced bap-tid'-zo)
from a derivative of 911; to immerse, submerge; to make whelmed (i.e. fully wet); used only (in the New Testament) of ceremonial ablution,
especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism:--Baptist, baptize, wash.
We transliterate the Greek word baptizo and say baptize, but the original first century Greek translation for the word into English is immerse.

It would be wrong to say immersion baptism since that would be: "baptizo baptizo", they are the same word.
There is nothing mentioned about pouring or sprinkling.

The Orthodox baptize both infants and everyone else by threefold full immersion, one immersion in the name of each member of the Trinity. It is possible to safely baptize an infant through full immersion and our clergy has multiple techniques for doing that.

The only case where we would not do that would be if someone being baptized had a tracheotomy or other life-sustaining medical intervention that would make full immersion dangerous, in which case some alternative approach could be used.

bling · Feb 16, 2024

Xeno.of.athens said:
Where I a Baptist I'd accept your story, but I am not, so I do not accept it.

What support do you have for another story?
I has nothing to do with the tradition you grow up with.

bling · Feb 16, 2024

The Liturgist said:
Yes. Baptism is not supposed to be repeated. Indeed thats why the Nicene Creed says “i confess one baptism for the remission of sins”

I agree there is only one baptism and we know of only adults for certain being baptized by immersion.

The Liturgist · Feb 16, 2024

bling said:
I agree there is only one baptism and we know of only adults for certain being baptized by immersion.

The Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church of the East have always baptized infants, children and adults via threefold full immersion, and this was the case well before the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. There is also strong reason to believe the Roman Church once did this; I would speculate that one reason why they moved away from full immersion involved logistical headaches when baptizing adult women (the Eastern Orthodox historically used deaconesses to go down into the water with women). While unfortunately we do not currently have any Assyrian members (so regarding the Church of the East I suppose you will have to take my word for it, although I can get you in touch with Assyrian clergy), my beloved friends @HTacianas @FenderTL5 and @prodromos can confirm Eastern Orthodox baptismal practices, and my beloved Coptic and Armenian friends @dzheremi and @Tigran1245 can confirm Oriental Orthodox baptismal practices. The Coptic Orthodox are particularly strict about triple immersion.

These churches (at least the Eastern Orthodox and the Coptic and Syriac Orthodox, but I would assume the rest) also immediately confirm the baptized and baptism and confirmation normally precedes the Eucharist, and thus infants and all other baptized persons usually receive their first communion on the day of their baptism. Like with full immersion baptism, the method of providing the Eucharist is safe for infants.

Scriptural texts which refer to entire households being baptized, along with the statement of our Lord “Suffer the little ones to come to me” in combination with the history of the Eastern churches, in particular, the long history of full immersion of infants and children, the credobaptist position less than tenable, since a major credobaptist claim is that baptisms are not viable unless performed via full immersion (which would include my own, for I was baptized in the Methodist Church via aspersion), and this I believe led to the belief that the early church did not baptize children, but the scriptural text does not make such an assertion. In particular, given the benefits ascribed to Baptism and the Eucharist, and our Lord’s directive to suffer the little ones to come to Him, the way to do that is clearly via Baptism and the Eucharist.

My dear friend @Ain't Zwinglian has done superb work on the problem of credobaptism, which exists even in some denominations which officially reject it, such as among the Methodists (there is even a term for Credobaptist leaning Methodist elders, Methobaptists). Since the UMC Book of Discipline requires the baptism of infants, these elders seek to put up road blocks such as only offering infant baptism at certain times of year. This is a direct contradiction to John Wesley’s faith, for John and Charles Wesley were committed Anglicans who loved the Book of Common Prayer, and the Church of England always baptized infants.

As an aside, the Book of Discipline and the faith of John Wesley are both being ignored and contradicted by the pro-homosexual faction which has seized control following the adoption of the Traditional Plan in 2018 using Covid-19 as a pretext and which has treated traditional parishes much worse than the Episcopal Church, particularly when one considers the ideal set by the ELCA and especially the PCUSA with its Gracious Dismissal initiative, which sought to, in many cases successfully, persuade parishes to remain voluntarily.

Ain't Zwinglian · Feb 16, 2024

bling said:
You do not bury a person by putting dirt on his head.

Jesus was not buried in the ground and immersed with dirt. The women in the morning didn’t go to the tomb of Jesus with shovels, picks, and a wheel barrow to dig up the body of Jesus. This is not a picture of immersion baptism. When credo’s state this is a picture of immersion baptism, they are confusing modern burial practices with ancient burial practices.

Critical to how Credobaptists justify “immersion only baptism” is specifically the word “buried.” It is used only twice in the NT and only by Paul. Normally immersionists will use the word “picture” to describe “burial” as going under the water.” And from the analogy of the “picture” of burial, come to the conclusion of the mode of immersion baptism only.

“To bury” refers to any process in which we place human remains in their final resting place.

We have to make a distinction between modern western and ancient mid-eastern burial practices. In the ancient middle east, it was common for prominent people to be buried in a tomb. The Egyptian pharaohs were buried in their pyramids. Abraham was buried in a cave. King David was buried in a tomb in Jerusalem. John’s the Baptist body was “buried” in a tomb. The raising of Lazarus was from a tomb. And Jesus was buried a tomb.

Your hermenuetical blunder here is this: A distinction must be made between what baptism accomplishes (Romans 6) and how baptism is to be administered (All the texts in the Book of Acts showing examples of baptism). Romans 6 is not a text on how to administer baptism.

Tigran1245 · Feb 17, 2024

The Liturgist said:
The Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church of the East have always baptized infants, children and adults via threefold full immersion, and this was the case well before the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. There is also strong reason to believe the Roman Church once did this; I would speculate that one reason why they moved away from full immersion involved logistical headaches when baptizing adult women (the Eastern Orthodox historically used deaconesses to go down into the water with women). While unfortunately we do not currently have any Assyrian members (so regarding the Church of the East I suppose you will have to take my word for it, although I can get you in touch with Assyrian clergy), my beloved friends @HTacianas @FenderTL5 and @prodromos can confirm Eastern Orthodox baptismal practices, and my beloved Coptic and Armenian friends @dzheremi and @Tigran1245 can confirm Oriental Orthodox baptismal practices. The Coptic Orthodox are particularly strict about triple immersion.

These churches (at least the Eastern Orthodox and the Coptic and Syriac Orthodox, but I would assume the rest) also immediately confirm the baptized and baptism and confirmation normally precedes the Eucharist, and thus infants and all other baptized persons usually receive their first communion on the day of their baptism. Like with full immersion baptism, the method of providing the Eucharist is safe for infants.

Scriptural texts which refer to entire households being baptized, along with the statement of our Lord “Suffer the little ones to come to me” in combination with the history of the Eastern churches, in particular, the long history of full immersion of infants and children, the credobaptist position less than tenable, since a major credobaptist claim is that baptisms are not viable unless performed via full immersion (which would include my own, for I was baptized in the Methodist Church via aspersion), and this I believe led to the belief that the early church did not baptize children, but the scriptural text does not make such an assertion. In particular, given the benefits ascribed to Baptism and the Eucharist, and our Lord’s directive to suffer the little ones to come to Him, the way to do that is clearly via Baptism and the Eucharist.

My dear friend @Ain't Zwinglian has done superb work on the problem of credobaptism, which exists even in some denominations which officially reject it, such as among the Methodists (there is even a term for Credobaptist leaning Methodist elders, Methobaptists). Since the UMC Book of Discipline requires the baptism of infants, these elders seek to put up road blocks such as only offering infant baptism at certain times of year. This is a direct contradiction to John Wesley’s faith, for John and Charles Wesley were committed Anglicans who loved the Book of Common Prayer, and the Church of England always baptized infants.

As an aside, the Book of Discipline and the faith of John Wesley are both being ignored and contradicted by the pro-homosexual faction which has seized control following the adoption of the Traditional Plan in 2018 using Covid-19 as a pretext and which has treated traditional parishes much worse than the Episcopal Church, particularly when one considers the ideal set by the ELCA and especially the PCUSA with its Gracious Dismissal initiative, which sought to, in many cases successfully, persuade parishes to remain voluntarily.

I can say that in the Armenian Church we baptize not only by complete immersion, but also simply by sprinkling with water, if there is nowhere to carry out the immersion.

Ain't Zwinglian · Feb 17, 2024

tampasteve said:
Being as Baptism is a adaption, elevation even of the ritual Mikvah use we can be fairly confident that full immersion was the initial practice. Whether full immersion is needed to effect a Baptism as it is not actually the same act as using a Mikvah is another matter. I lean that it is not necessary for a Baptism as the ritual and sacrament are not the same.

The practice of Mikvah "washing" or "baptism" is extra Biblical material and is not to be used to interpret Scripture. Contextual a mikvah in the OT is just a container for holding any amount water. There is no NT usage of the word "Mikvah." Baptists and American evangelicals are real big on Sola Scriptura....except when it comes to baptism as they quote both the Didache and Jewish writings of the Second and Third Centuries (CE). All extra Biblical materials.

Xeno.of.athens said:
"Mikvah" just isn't relevant unless there is some direct evidence that John the Baptist and Jesus intended baptism to be an extension of a mikvah.

Absolutely correct.

The OT conception of purification was by washing with water. The closest OT resemblance of NT baptism is the seven "washings" of Naanam in the Jordan. Only two elements of Naanam washing are apart of NT baptism....water and the promise attached to the washing...."wash and be cleansed" (from leprosy II Kings 5:13).

The administration of John's baptism as well as Christian baptism is quite different. Whereas, in all OT washings....the individual does it himself/herself....in John's and Christian baptism the recipient is purely passive and baptism is the work of another. While it is true, promises are attached to both John's Baptism (for the forgiveness of sins Mark 1:8) and Christian baptism (for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit Acts 2:38), the big difference for Christian baptism is the placing of God's true name on the recipient during baptism.

There are no promises attached to the Mikvah washings, or other NT ceremonial washing as in Luke 11:28 and Mark 7:4.....it is just water and no baptism.

Ain't Zwinglian · Feb 17, 2024

bling said:
Matthew 3:16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.

The sequence: A) Jesus was baptized. 2) He came out of the water. Coming out of the water was done AFTER Jesus was baptized. Two separate completed actions.

Immersionists do injustice to the text and want to combine these actions as if Matthew were saying: Jesus during the process of being baptized came out of the water and then and only then was baptism was completed. But this is not what the text says.

Coming out of the water simply means Jesus went to the shore after he was baptized. This is what the plain text says.

Xeno.of.athens · Feb 17, 2024

Ain't Zwinglian said:
Absolutely correct.

The OT conception of purification was by washing with water. The closest OT resemblance of NT baptism is the seven "washings" of Naanam in the Jordan. Only two elements of Naanam washing are apart of NT baptism....water and the promise attached to the washing...."wash and be cleansed" (from leprosy II Kings 5:13).

The administration of John's baptism as well as Christian baptism is quite different. Whereas, in all OT washings....the individual does it himself/herself....in John's and Christian baptism the recipient is purely passive and baptism is the work of another. While it is true, promises are attached to both John's Baptism (for the forgiveness of sins Mark 1:8) and Christian baptism (for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit Acts 2:38), the big difference for Christian baptism is the placing of God's true name on the recipient during baptism.

There are no promises attached to the Mikvah washings, or other NT ceremonial washing as in Luke 11:28 and Mark 7:4.....it is just water and no baptism.

Agreed, and those who attempt to make baptism into an extension of a Mikvah are speculating not exegeting the use of "baptism" in the new testament. That type of speculation is eisegesis. It's bringing theology to the text and forcing the theology into the text.

Ain't Zwinglian · Feb 17, 2024

WilliamC said:
Please... show us a statement from the Scriptures, where it teaches that sprinkling was the primary mode for baptism?

This is simple. Paul was baptized in a standing position. See Acts 9:17ff and Acts 22:16ff.

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

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

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

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

Paul was not immersed in the house of Judas.

We have two texts from Scripture,
Both commenting on the same event
Both using the same Greek verb for standing up
Both commenting on a mode of baptism
And contextually it cannot be immersion baptism.

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

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

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

Scripture does not say which mode Paul was baptized with. Contextually, it can not be immersion.

Dan Perez · Feb 17, 2024

Xeno.of.athens said:
The scriptures tell us that there is one baptism with the implication that there are not two or more. It is wrong to teach contrary to the clear statements of the scriptures.

hy goive that verse , and is it Eph 4:5 ??

dan p

WilliamC · Feb 17, 2024

Ain't Zwinglian said:
This is simple.

If only it was.

Ain't Zwinglian said:
Paul was baptized in a standing position. See Acts 9:17ff and Acts 22:16ff.

That is your opinion.

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

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

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

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

Of course Saul had to stand up to take any action...he was either sitting or crouched on the ground. 22:13 tells us that Ananias stood over Saul and Saul stated , that he looked up upon Ananias.Whether you believe he was sprinkled or poured upon, or that he arose and was immersed, does nothing to support your view no more than mine in this verse. Beliefs need to be tested and reconciled by Scripture.

Ain't Zwinglian said:
Paul was not immersed in the house of Judas.

We have two texts from Scripture,

Both commenting on the same event

Both using the same Greek verb for standing up

Yup.

Ain't Zwinglian said:
Both commenting on a mode of baptism

And contextually it cannot be immersion baptism.

It never enforces your wanna be mode any more that it would immersion. The action of standing up does not prop up either mode you want it to be. You have to eisegete to do that.

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

Could be reasonable, but just as reasonable at Jesus baptism...straightway (euthus= upright) out of the water. This is as plain as a text can get my friend. And of course the matter of Phillip and the eunuch, where in Acts 8:38 they both went down into the water. No need to do this if sprinkling or pouring over the head was the mode. And the came up out of the water..vs.39. Death, burial, resurrection... no on has a cup of dirt thrown over their head when they are buried.

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

We simply use Scripture to test our reason. Line up on line, precept upon precept, here a little, there a little.

Ain't Zwinglian said:
The problem here is called confirmation bias. If a Baptist where brought up from cradle to grave, believing "all baptism in the NT are immersion," THEN THEY ARE. But how do you know they are unless each and every instance is investigated to determine if they are immersion?

Brother, I was brought up from several different opinions of who is correct... catholic views, methodists, presbyterians, pentecostals, adventists, etc... so I had little to no leaning bias.

Ain't Zwinglian said:
Scripture does not say which mode Paul was baptized with. Contextually, it can not be immersion.

I suppose everyone has their bias. I choose to reconcile as best as possible with the whole perspective of the Scriptures. Blessings!

Ain't Zwinglian · Feb 17, 2024

WilliamC said:
Could be reasonable, but just as reasonable at Jesus baptism...straightway (euthus= upright) out of the water. This is as plain as a text can get my friend.

You didn't read my post #31 so I will repeat it.

The text: Mark 1:9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him

Matthew 3:16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.

The sequence: A) Jesus was baptized. 2) He came out of the water. Coming out of the water was done AFTER Jesus was baptized. Two separate completed actions.

We have two texts saying the same thing....

Immersionists do injustice to the text and want to combine these actions as if Matthew & Mark were saying: Jesus during the process of being baptized came out of the water and then and only then was baptism was completed. But this is not what the text says.

Coming out of the water simply means Jesus went to the shore after he was baptized. This is what the plain text says.

This is as plain text as you can get. Mixing two actions as if they were one is eisegete ones opinion into the text.

To read immersion baptism into this passage an argument by conjecture, conclusive only to those who already presuppose “baptism always means immersion in the Bible,”

Ain't Zwinglian · Feb 17, 2024

WilliamC said:
And of course the matter of Phillip and the eunuch, where in Acts 8:38 they both went down into the water. No need to do this if sprinkling or pouring over the head was the mode.

Pure eisegesis.

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

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

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

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

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

What is Luke trying to convey?

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

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

Ain't Zwinglian · Feb 17, 2024

WilliamC said:
Death, burial, resurrection... no on has a cup of dirt thrown over their head when they are buried.

You didn't read post #28 where I answered this. This refers to Romans 6. This is eisegesis at it's best.

Jesus was not buried in the ground and immersed with dirt. The women in the morning didn’t go to the tomb of Jesus with shovels, picks, and a wheel barrow to dig up the body of Jesus. This is not a picture of immersion baptism. When credo’s state this is a picture of immersion baptism, they are confusing modern burial practices with ancient burial practices.

Critical to how Credobaptists justify “immersion only baptism” is specifically the word “buried.” It is used only twice in the NT and only by Paul. Normally immersionists will use the word “picture” to describe “burial” as going under the water.” And from the analogy of the “picture” of burial, come to the conclusion of the mode of immersion baptism only.

“To bury” refers to any process in which we place human remains in their final resting place.

We have to make a distinction between modern western and ancient mid-eastern burial practices. In the ancient middle east, it was common for prominent people to be buried in a tomb. The Egyptian pharaohs were buried in their pyramids. Abraham was buried in a cave. King David was buried in a tomb in Jerusalem. John’s the Baptist body was “buried” in a tomb. The raising of Lazarus was from a tomb. And Jesus was buried a tomb.

Your hermenuetical blunder here is this: A distinction must be made between what baptism accomplishes (Romans 6) and how baptism is to be administered (All the texts in the Book of Acts showing examples of baptism). Romans 6 is not a text on how to administer baptism.

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

Ain't Zwinglian · Feb 17, 2024

WilliamC said:
I choose to reconcile as best as possible with the whole perspective of the Scriptures.

Concerning the baptism of the Phillipian jailor: Did Paul and Silas bring a towel and and extra change of clothes with them when they baptized the jailor. Did they take a night hike to find a river?

Concerning the Day of Pentecost:

Did 3,000 people bring a towel and an extra change of clothes?
Did 3,000 people walk around soaking wet?
Did 3,000 people walk around in their Palestinian G strings?
Did 3,000 go skinny dipping?

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

WilliamC · Feb 17, 2024

Ain't Zwinglian said:
You didn't read my post #31 so I will repeat it.

The text: Mark 1:9 At that time Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. 10 Just as Jesus was coming up out of the water, he saw heaven being torn open and the Spirit descending on him

Matthew 3:16 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.

The sequence: A) Jesus was baptized. 2) He came out of the water. Coming out of the water was done AFTER Jesus was baptized. Two separate completed actions.

We have two texts saying the same thing....

Oh I read your post, twice now.
Jn. 3:23- "And John also was baptizing in Ae-non near Sa-lim, because there was MUCH WATER THERE: and they came and were baptized." (my emphasis)
*They came to the river to be baptized in deep water. If they were to be sprinkled or poured upon, the water could have easily been brought to them.

Mt. 3:16 "And Jesus,when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water".
Mk. 1:10 "And straightway coming up out of the water..."

NOT from the water, but..coming up out of the water. I see a distinct difference, as well as many others.

Ain't Zwinglian said:
Immersionists do injustice to the text and want to combine these actions as if Matthew & Mark were saying: Jesus during the process of being baptized came out of the water and then and only then was baptism was completed. But this is not what the text says.

Sorry my friend, I cant see your reasoning.

Ain't Zwinglian said:
Coming out of the water simply means Jesus went to the shore after he was baptized. This is what the plain text says.

See above... I beg to differ. Again, coming UP out of the water.

Ain't Zwinglian said:
This is as plain text as you can get. Mixing two actions as if they were one is eisegete ones opinion into the text.

It is very plain to see what it means.

Ain't Zwinglian said:
To read immersion baptism into this passage an argument by conjecture, conclusive only to those who already presuppose “baptism always means immersion in the Bible,”

In respect to baptism,as involved with water, the word baptizo= to submerge or immerse, is used. The word is not rantizo =sprinkle, nor is it eccheo= to pour. There is no Greek lexicon that defines baptizo as sprinkling. The BADG defines baptizo as to dip, immerse, plunge, sink.
The Didache is a possible late first century, early second century work that mentions pouring, but its not the Scriptures.

Rom.6:3-5- "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. For if we have been PLANTED together in the LIKENESS of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection". (my emphasis)
Col. 2:12-"BURIED with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead". (my emphasis)

Though Christ was not under the ground he was completely enclosed, immersed by the tomb. Yet the Scriptures say he was buried, and raised.
One does not "plant" by sprinkling, or pouring a little dirt on top, it means to be immersed under.

I'm sorry my friend, we could go back and forth about this for quite a while. I don't believe we will ever see eye to eye, so I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. Blessings

Many watery baptisms.

Active Member

Pray for peace in Israel

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Regular Member

Regular Member

Traditional Liturgical Christian

Well-Known Member

Armenian Apostolic Church

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Similar threads