Baptism and communion

[Ain't Zwinglian]

they both went down (κατέβησαν, 3Plural) into the water

They "went down" but the scripture did not specifically say Philip was immersed

The Greek text does indeed state they both went down into the water.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Please supply NT scriptural evidence for non-immersive baptism.

See posts #111, #117 and especially #124 within this thread.

 

[lanceleo]

Description =/= prescription.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-CryptoLutheran

It clear in the Bible when someone puts faith in Jesus and is baptized, the location chosen is always one with plenty of water and by going down to it.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

It clear in the Bible when someone puts faith in Jesus and is baptized, the location chosen is always one with plenty of water and by going down to it.

A massively general statement which can not under any circumstances be substantiated.

Where is there ALWAYS (your words) plenty of water and going down in it specifically stated in Scripture in the following passages in Acts.

3,000 baptism in Jerusalem.
Phillipian Jailor.
Paul baptism in a house in a standing position.
Lydia's baptism.
Stephanus baptism.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It clear in the Bible when someone puts faith in Jesus and is baptized, the location chosen is always one with plenty of water and by going down to it.

I am comfortable with the assumption that immersion was common, even standard, mode of baptism. But historically we know that pouring was a perfectly acceptable mode of baptism, at least when there was an insufficient quantity of water. We see this in the early Church document known as the Didache (written sometime between 60 and 120 AD), which provides the most ideal baptismal conditions: immersion in cold running water; but that this was not a hard requirement, the ancient Church wasn't legalistic or exceptionally picky about this. If there wasn't any cold running water, it was fine to use standing water, even warm water if cold wasn't available, and if there wasn't enough water to immerse in, then pouring was perfectly fine.

And that's simply how it's been the last two thousand years, from New Testament times until now. The mode of baptism has never been of extreme importance--what mattered was that it was done in accordance with Christ's command: the Church is commanded to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in Matthew 28:19. There have been ideal situations, generally it has been ideal for a pastor to perform the baptismal rite, and as part of a service, preferably on Easter Sunday as a way to provide a grand welcome to the baptized in the Church of the Risen Christ. But if that doesn't happen, as long as it is Christian baptism, it's baptism. Who performs the baptism isn't what matters, the mode isn't what matters, the type or quantity of water doesn't matter--what matters is that it is Christian baptism. This is why the historic churches fully accept the baptisms of other Christians, regardless of denomination--insofar as it was a Christian baptism then that's what matters.

In modern times a small number of Christians have become very rigid about baptism, based upon their own particular interpretations and traditions. Which is made weirder when one also realizes that those who are most rigid, or even legalistic, about baptism also don't believe baptism is anything more than a symbolic act, that it is an empty religious ritual that doesn't actually do anything except get a person wet.

Here's a question worth asking yourself: Why do you feel it necessary to insist that descriptions of baptism in the New Testament are prescriptive--especially when it actually isn't all that clear how the baptism was being done. If we add up all the times someone is baptized, starting in the Acts of the Apostles (since we are talking Christian baptism, not the baptism of John the Baptist, not Jewish tevilah), we actually don't get a clear description. We get, at best, a handful of rough descriptions, but mostly no description is ever given.

I am comfortable assuming immersion was probably how it was usually or generally done, not because the Bible makes that clear (it doesn't), but because extra-biblical early Christian sources--like the Didache mentioned above--say that.

No where in Scripture is immersion-only baptism taught. Such a view is not, and indeed cannot, be derived from Scripture; rather it is a modern and man-made tradition imposed upon Scripture.

I know that saying this will come off as offensive. As someone raised in an immersion-only church tradition, there were a lot of things that I just took for granted as "biblical". The argument that "baptize" means "immerse" and can only mean "immerse" was one I used to use myself when I was younger, because it's an argument I learned from pastors, youth pastors, Sunday School teachers, etc. So it's the argument I also used. And because of that, anything different than that was what I could safely accuse of being "traditions of men", and remind myself that Jesus condemned the traditions of men because tradition meant ignoring the word of God. Back then one of the most offensive things that I could think being told is that what I was practicing was just a human tradition. Which is why I know me saying this about immersion-only baptism will offend some, because it would have offended me back when I subscribed to an immersion-only view of baptism.

But offense isn't my intent. The intent is to provoke deeper reflection.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

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

If the goal of baptism is to symbolically picture a person being buried in the ground in imitation of Christ's burial, then that's actually wrong.

Christ wasn't buried in the dirt. There was a rock-hewn tomb, it was a family tomb that belonged to St. Joseph of Arimathea. Jesus body was placed into the tomb, placed on a slab, the body prepared in accordance with Jewish funerary customs, and the grave sealed up by a large moveable stone.

The body wasn't laid down into the ground, but taken horizontally into the tomb.

Ordinarily a body buried in this fashion was left to decay naturally, and later the bones would then be collected and placed in an ossuary, or bone-box, and then that was reburied or placed in a tomb. Our Lord was only dead three days, His body did not see decay, He rose out of the tomb, the stone rolled away, the grave clothes left for good on the stone slab in the tomb.

Baptism is not meant to be a picture of burial, in baptism we aren't symbolically buried with Jesus in some kind of getting-wet ritual; we die, are buried, and rise with Jesus Christ, so that the life that He lives is ours by grace.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[lanceleo]

I am comfortable with the assumption that immersion was common, even standard, mode of baptism. But historically we know that pouring was a perfectly acceptable mode of baptism, at least when there was an insufficient quantity of water. We see this in the early Church document known as the Didache (written sometime between 60 and 120 AD), which provides the most ideal baptismal conditions: immersion in cold running water; but that this was not a hard requirement, the ancient Church wasn't legalistic or exceptionally picky about this. If there wasn't any cold running water, it was fine to use standing water, even warm water if cold wasn't available, and if there wasn't enough water to immerse in, then pouring was perfectly fine.

Let's assume you are right. Let's assume there are other legit modes of baptism other than immersion. According to the Didache regarding baptism there is an order.

“Baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit,” (Didache, Chapter 7).​

1 - baptise in living water
2 - baptise in other water (cold)
3 - baptise in other water (warm)
4 - pour water out 3 times upon the head

How many, in today's standard, go straight to the pouring of water? Aren't they acting in violation of this prescription?

And that's simply how it's been the last two thousand years, from New Testament times until now. The mode of baptism has never been of extreme importance--what mattered was that it was done in accordance with Christ's command: the Church is commanded to baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in Matthew 28:19. There have been ideal situations, generally it has been ideal for a pastor to perform the baptismal rite, and as part of a service, preferably on Easter Sunday as a way to provide a grand welcome to the baptized in the Church of the Risen Christ. But if that doesn't happen, as long as it is Christian baptism, it's baptism. Who performs the baptism isn't what matters, the mode isn't what matters, the type or quantity of water doesn't matter--what matters is that it is Christian baptism. This is why the historic churches fully accept the baptisms of other Christians, regardless of denomination--insofar as it was a Christian baptism then that's what matters.

I agree the baptizer isn't important but the mode has always been associated with being buried. Therefore we must work towards that direction.

In modern times a small number of Christians have become very rigid about baptism, based upon their own particular interpretations and traditions. Which is made weirder when one also realizes that those who are most rigid, or even legalistic, about baptism also don't believe baptism is anything more than a symbolic act, that it is an empty religious ritual that doesn't actually do anything except get a person wet.

This isn't so much to do with interpretations. This is a logical deduction from God-given common sense.

Here's a question worth asking yourself: Why do you feel it necessary to insist that descriptions of baptism in the New Testament are prescriptive--especially when it actually isn't all that clear how the baptism was being done. If we add up all the times someone is baptized, starting in the Acts of the Apostles (since we are talking Christian baptism, not the baptism of John the Baptist, not Jewish tevilah), we actually don't get a clear description. We get, at best, a handful of rough descriptions, but mostly no description is ever given.

Again, the context is being buried with Christ.

No where in Scripture is immersion-only baptism taught. Such a view is not, and indeed cannot, be derived from Scripture; rather it is a modern and man-made tradition imposed upon Scripture.

We do have examples but I'll share the Ethiopian eunuch one. After he accepted the Gospel that Philip shared, he could have used the water readily available in his chariot for sprinkling or pouring. But he looked for a spot where they "come up out of the water".

I know that saying this will come off as offensive. As someone raised in an immersion-only church tradition, there were a lot of things that I just took for granted as "biblical". The argument that "baptize" means "immerse" and can only mean "immerse" was one I used to use myself when I was younger, because it's an argument I learned from pastors, youth pastors, Sunday School teachers, etc. So it's the argument I also used. And because of that, anything different than that was what I could safely accuse of being "traditions of men", and remind myself that Jesus condemned the traditions of men because tradition meant ignoring the word of God. Back then one of the most offensive things that I could think being told is that what I was practicing was just a human tradition. Which is why I know me saying this about immersion-only baptism will offend some, because it would have offended me back when I subscribed to an immersion-only view of baptism.

But offense isn't my intent. The intent is to provoke deeper reflection.

I appreciate you taking time to explain your stance. Debates are definitely not a waste of time because you actually get to see the best of what both sides can put forward, but also how these positions cross examined one another. If anything, they are a good starting place for much deeper study. Especially you can find out what happens when you bring your best arguments and the other side has a chance to cross examine them.

 

[mikeforjesus]

I believe people should obey bible only though accept what is right in other teachers to leave judgement of other Christian’s to Christ and I do believe as bible says we are saved because of what Christ did as Billy graham says but I believe part of obedience is to seek to be baptised though may not be required and should leave judgement of other Christian’s to Christ who decides what is just. And I also believe persons should be baptised only when they believe so infant baptism is not valid. I believe probably people can be baptised by any who know your intention in any church because otherwise is not guaranteed because may not find one who agrees and people can fake their faith so it is not their faith for it is your faith that justifies but can also to be sure be baptised by any who says they believe same or keep searching to be safe but I think may be sufficient if just your intention. But one does not need to if he just kept searching and did not find but he should keep searching because he may die when not searching.

 

[mikeforjesus]

I believe I did a mistake and don’t believe God is technical about external to even care if one is baptised because what is important is one faith and seeking to live according to Christ for salvation comes from Him only not needing another man. Baptism I believe was only a command in early church to show authority of believers that was required only when one makes the move to command baptism but later as seen in acts with the gentiles people received Holy Spirit by belief only. If others are worried they can be baptised as well as long as they believe they must trust Christ by any church that can and if want to be baptised in a church as adult with intention to be baptised only into Christ not a church can do or if you think is important but may be harder to find a church with certain beliefs to allow you or to allow you to be baptised twice.

 

[Dan Perez]

What? Paul was baptized in a standing position.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes he was BAPTIZED standing up and reads ARISE // ANISTEMI !!

dan p

 

[Doug Brents]

Yes he was BAPTIZED standing up and reads ARISE // ANISTEMI !!

dan p

No Dan. God does not write in His Word every single step in a command. Arise, go outside, find the nearest water big enough to get into.... No, it is sufficient to say that he must arise, because he couldn't get baptized where he was sitting, and do whatever it takes to get baptized right now.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

No Dan. God does not write in His Word every single step in a command. Arise, go outside, find the nearest water big enough to get into.... No, it is sufficient to say that he must arise, because he couldn't get baptized where he was sitting, and do whatever it takes to get baptized right now.

What? There are six passages of Scripture in the NT where the word baptizo is used, water is applied the human body, and contextually it can not mean immersion baptism. I will only comment on two of the six.

My comments will focus on Paul's baptism. Acts 9:18 and 22:16.

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.

The Biblical text is clear...Paul was baptized in a standing position.

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 (certainly not credobaptists and immersionists), but I am saying it is a reasonable deduction from the text itself.

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

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

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

Please marshal your best argument why two passages of Scripture that state clearly Paul was baptized in a standing position....really wasn't. Also please elaborate why the plain text rule must be ignored. I can't wait for your answer!

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

It clear in the Bible when someone puts faith in Jesus and is baptized, the location chosen is always one with plenty of water and by going down to it.

A massively general statement which can not under any circumstances be substantiated.

Where is there ALWAYS (your words) plenty of water and going down in it specifically stated in Scripture in the following passages in Acts.

3,000 baptism in Jerusalem.
Phillipian Jailor.
Paul baptism in a house in a standing position.
Lydia's baptism.
Stephanus baptism.

You still have not provided evidence "the location chosen is always one with plenty of water and by going down to it."

This is a major problem among some (but not all) credobaptists/immersionists here on CF. They just make up stuff to justify their personal beliefs. And to make things worse, it seems to me without evidence to prove it, their consciences are perfectly acceptable with this practice.

 

[lanceleo]

You still have not provided evidence "the location chosen is always one with plenty of water and by going down to it."

This is a major problem among some (but not all) credobaptists/immersionists here on CF. They just make up stuff to justify their personal beliefs. And to make things worse, it seems to me without evidence to prove it, their consciences are perfectly acceptable with this practice.

Why didn't the eunuch baptize with the drinking water in his chariot?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Why didn't the eunuch baptize with the drinking water in his chariot?

I don't know. The text doesn't give us an answer.

Acts 8 is a very poor text to establish immersion only baptism. Some have called this example: The Baptist Doctrine of Double Dipping....for to affirm the Eunuch was dunked, is to affirm Phillip also was dunked at the same time. No kidding!

And the text demonstrates this. The all important verses for immersionists is 8:38-39a "and they both went down (κατέβησαν) into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 When they came up (ἀνέβησαν) out of the water....

How do Baptists get immersion baptism from this text? They went down into the water “as going under, or submersion in water” and “they came up out of the water” meaning they resurfaced.

What is the problem here? Pay attention to 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, 3P Plural) into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 When they came up (ἀνέβησαν 3P Plural) out of the water,

What does this mean?

• According to the immersionist theory of this baptism, both the Phillip and the Eunuch were immersed.
• They went in and he baptized him AND they came out. Because of the plural pronoun "they", whatever is attributed to the Eunuch is attributed to Phillip.

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?
• Does this mean every time a preacher administers baptism, he must get dunked also?

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.

You did say for baptism "the location chosen is always one with plenty of water and by going down to it."

Please try harder to find textual evidence for this statement of yours.

 

[lanceleo]

I don't know. The text doesn't give us an answer.

Acts 8 is a very poor text to establish immersion only baptism. Some have called this example: The Baptist Doctrine of Double Dipping....for to affirm the Eunuch was dunked, is to affirm Phillip also was dunked at the same time. No kidding!

And the text demonstrates this. The all important verses for immersionists is 8:38-39a "and they both went down (κατέβησαν) into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 When they came up (ἀνέβησαν) out of the water....

How do Baptists get immersion baptism from this text? They went down into the water “as going under, or submersion in water” and “they came up out of the water” meaning they resurfaced.

What is the problem here? Pay attention to 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, 3P Plural) into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 When they came up (ἀνέβησαν 3P Plural) out of the water,

What does this mean?

• According to the immersionist theory of this baptism, both the Phillip and the Eunuch were immersed.
• They went in and he baptized him AND they came out. Because of the plural pronoun "they", whatever is attributed to the Eunuch is attributed to Phillip.

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?
• Does this mean every time a preacher administers baptism, he must get dunked also?

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.

You did say for baptism "the location chosen is always one with plenty of water and by going down to it."

Please try harder to find textual evidence for this statement of yours.

By going down into the water does not necessarily mean both are immersed. Philip is said to baptise the Eunuch. Baptizo, which comes from bapto, meaning “to dip,” “to plunge under,” “to immerse.” The word was used by the Greeks to signify the plunging of cloth to be dyed under the colored liquid until it changed color. So in order to dip, to plunge or to immerse someone, it has to be done from an elevated point. Philip could be waist-deep into the water to do the baptizing.

Mark 1:9-11
King James Version
9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Jesus came to John to be baptized in Jordan and then he came up out of the water. If John was being dipped like Jesus, the passage does not mention him coming out of the water, which means he could still be in it so unless he is a fisherman like Peter he's going to have a hard time holding his breath. Or he was baptizing Jesus but was not dipped like Jesus was.

The Bible teaches that both John the Baptist and our Lord Jesus Himself chose a place where there was much water, to do their baptizing:

John 3:22-23
King James Version
22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.
23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Jesus came to John to be baptized in Jordan and then he came up out of the water. If John was being dipped like Jesus, the passage does not mention him coming out of the water, which means he could still be in it so unless he is a fisherman like Peter he's going to have a hard time holding his breath. Or he was baptizing Jesus but was not dipped like Jesus was.

Sounds like gibberish to me.

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 the actions as if 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 he went to the shore. Duh! Interpretation of Scripture is not rocket science.

By going down into the water does not necessarily mean both are immersed.

The grammar of the text will not allow that assertion. Grammar is incredibly important in solving problems in interpreting Scripture. Which comes down to a basic rule of interpreting Scripture: Grammar always informs theology. Theology never informs grammar. In this case, your theological considerations such as the mode of immersion trumps all grammatical rules.

I am done and finished with you on this matter. Seems we have different levels of comprehension skills. Over and out.

 

[lanceleo]

Sounds like gibberish to me.

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 the actions as if 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 he went to the shore. Duh! Interpretation of Scripture is not rocket science.

If sprinkling or pouring of water was used as a mode why did Jesus even have to go down into the water? He could have just stood on the shore. Duh!

The grammar of the text will not allow that assertion. Grammar is incredibly important in solving problems in interpreting Scripture. Which comes down to a basic rule of interpreting Scripture: Grammar always informs theology. Theology never informs grammar. In this case, your theological considerations such as the mode of immersion trumps all grammatical rules.

I am done and finished with you on this matter. Seems we have different levels of comprehension skills. Over and out.

What you need here is a little common sense. I can explain it for you but certainly cant understand it for you. Over and out too.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Duh!

After re-reading my words to you I must apologize for usage of this pejorative term.

 

[Doug Brents]

What? There are six passages of Scripture in the NT where the word baptizo is used, water is applied the human body, and contextually it can not mean immersion baptism. I will only comment on two of the six.

My comments will focus on Paul's baptism. Acts 9:18 and 22:16.

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.

The Biblical text is clear...Paul was baptized in a standing position.

This is just funny. There is almost no where in all of the Scriptures that we have an exact play by play recounting of every single act taken in a particular setting, and then only because those details are necessary for the understanding of the Spiritual context of the event. These two accounts of the same event do not even insinuate that Saul was baptized while standing there in the house. Clearly he had to move from where he was sitting (that is important to denote that this was not Spirit baptism, and that it was not sprinkling or pouring that was being discussed). But your idea that he did not move from the standing position is ludicrous.

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.

Yes, same Greek word for stand up. But that has nothing to do with this. Yes, he had to stand up (move from where he was sitting) to a place where there was water to be immersed into.

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 (certainly not credobaptists and immersionists), but I am saying it is a reasonable deduction from the text itself.

Wrong. Understanding that the word means immersion would lead any reasonable person to understand that after he stood up, he moved to where there was water, or had water brought to where he was, and then was immersed into it, and then sat back down to eat. There is no mention in the passage that he sat back down to eat, but that is the typical mode employed in that day. They sat reclining on pillows or cushions while they ate at a low table.

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.

"Immersion, sprinkling, pouring" are not the "various modes of baptism used historically". In the first century immersion was the ONLY mode of immersing someone or something. The Greek word "baptisma" is the noun meaning immersion (not sprinkling or pouring).

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

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

Please marshal your best argument why two passages of Scripture that state clearly Paul was baptized in a standing position....really wasn't. Also please elaborate why the plain text rule must be ignored. I can't wait for your answer!

see above