Romans 4, water baptism?

[ViaCrucis]

If you check 1 Peter 3:21 where it reads , The like figure where unto even BAPTISM // really reads BAPTISMA and justbb check the Greek text by using BLUE LETTER BIBLE or use BIBLE HUB and it reads BAPTISMA , and BAPTISMA is used 22 times from Matthew through 1 Peter 21:21 , PEEIOD!!

Eph 4:5 reads ONE LORD , ONE FAITH ONE BAPTISMA !!

And that ONE BAPTISMA is the HOLY SPIRIT ,

No. That one baptisma is Baptism. Baptisma = Baptism. Baptism is the English transliteration of βάπτισμα.

Just because it BAPTIZE does NOT means WATER BAPTISM .

Why would it mean anything else?

In 1 Cor 10:2 reads , And they were all BAPTIZED onto Moses unto the CLOUD unto the SEA >

If it was WATER BAPTISM , how were the thousands of Jews that crossed the Red Sea , WATER BAPTIZED INTO MOSES ?

How were they BAPTIZED unto the CLOUD ?

And unto the SEA ??

What does CLOUD and the SEA mean as a figure of SPEECH ??

By the way , in 1 Cor 15:29 How were they BAPTIZED for the DEAD ?

Was it by WATER ??

dan p

Paul is using baptism in a figurative sense.

Let's take a common English word: bath. If I say, "I took a bath" what's the plain meaning of this statement? I literally took a bath, right? There was water, and I bathed in the water. Now let's look at another expression, "the trees were bathed in the colors of autumn", here "bathed" is being used figuratively. The trees didn't literally take a bath, rather I am using poetical, figurative language--using bath in a non literal way.

Since "baptize" (βαπτίζω) simply means "to wash" or "to immerse", Paul can use this word in a figurative way--the Israelites were "baptized" into Moses, through the sea and the cloud. That is, through their deliverance through the sea, and being led by cloud in the wilderness to Mt. Horeb in Sinai, God brought them to where they received the Covenant which God established with them through Moses. Of course, Paul's ultimate point is that Christ was there with them "the rock followed them, and that rock was Christ".

This is also why we can read an expression like "baptized with the Holy Spirit". This isn't baptism, it is a figurative expression utilizing the language of baptism. On Pentecost the Holy Spirit was poured out on all who were gathered together in the upper room, in fulfillment of what John the Baptist had said, "The One who comes after Me, whose sandals I am unfit to tie, will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire". These same words are echoed by Jesus just before His Ascension; He tells His disciples to remain in Jerusalem until they receive the Holy Spirit, the promise of the Father; this giving of the Spirit will be the sign and means by which the Apostles will be empowered to be His witnesses "beginning in Jerusalem, then Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth". Which is exactly what happens on Pentecost as recorded in Acts ch. 2, where God pours out the Spirit, and here St. Peter can stand up--filled with the Holy Spirit--and preach inspired truth about Jesus Christ to the Jewish pilgrims gathered in Jerusalem (Pentecost or Shavu'ot is one of the three pilgrim feasts of Judaism). And the Holy Spirit, by the preaching of Peter, converts those who hear the Gospel and they receive Baptism (yes, Baptism) and we read "about three thousand people were added to their number". The rest of the book of Acts is, as the name of the book indicates, the acts of the Apostles, the things the Apostles did after Pentecost--being the witnesses of Christ, the emissaries of Jesus to all nations--starting in Jerusalem, then Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. The Acts of the Apostles ends with St. Paul the Apostle awaiting his trial in Rome while under house arrest.

There is simply no reason to interpret "baptism" or "baptize" to mean anything other than their plain sense meaning unless context indicates otherwise.

"He will baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire" is clearly a non-standard use of "baptize", which is why "with the Holy Spirit and with fire" is used provide additional contextual meaning. Likewise, saying the Israelites were baptized through the sea and the cloud provides the contextual information to let us know that this isn't a standard, plain sense meaning of "baptize"/"baptism".

If we read "baptism" and "baptize" in their ordinary and plain sense, well they just mean "baptism" and "baptize". In the same way that "bath" or "bathed" in their ordinary and plain sense just mean "bath" and "bathed". Just because I can say "the trees were bathed in the colors of autumn" doesn't mean that if I say "I took a bath this morning" that anyone should assume I took a bath in the colors of autumn. "I took a bath" means I took a bath. If I want to use "bath" in a non-standard way, I make it clear through context: "I took a mud bath", "the trees were bathed in the colors of autumn", "my wife's beautiful face was bathed in moonlight as we sat under the stars".

Saying "baptize" means "Holy Spirit" is like saying "bath" means "colors of autumn".

That's not how language works. And it's why Christians, since the beginning, have always understood that baptism means baptism means baptism.

Remember, the Christians of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th (etc) were speakers of the language in which the New Testament was written. They used Koine in their homes, at the marketplace, in their church services. They didn't have the New Testament translated for them, there were Christians who simply spoke--as their native tongue--the language of the New Testament. That's relevant here.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dan Perez]

No. That one baptisma is Baptism. Baptisma = Baptism. Baptism is the English transliteration of βάπτισμα.



Why would it mean anything else?



Paul is using baptism in a figurative sense.

Let's take a common English word: bath. If I say, "I took a bath" what's the plain meaning of this statement? I literally took a bath, right? There was water, and I bathed in the water. Now let's look at another expression, "the trees were bathed in the colors of autumn", here "bathed" is being used figuratively. The trees didn't literally take a bath, rather I am using poetical, figurative language--using bath in a non literal way.

Since "baptize" (βαπτίζω) simply means "to wash" or "to immerse", Paul can use this word in a figurative way--the Israelites were "baptized" into Moses, through the sea and the cloud. That is, through their deliverance through the sea, and being led by cloud in the wilderness to Mt. Horeb in Sinai, God brought them to where they received the Covenant which God established with them through Moses. Of course, Paul's ultimate point is that Christ was there with them "the rock followed them, and that rock was Christ".

This is also why we can read an expression like "baptized with the Holy Spirit". This isn't baptism, it is a figurative expression utilizing the language of baptism. On Pentecost the Holy Spirit was poured out on all who were gathered together in the upper room, in fulfillment of what John the Baptist had said, "The One who comes after Me, whose sandals I am unfit to tie, will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire". These same words are echoed by Jesus just before His Ascension; He tells His disciples to remain in Jerusalem until they receive the Holy Spirit, the promise of the Father; this giving of the Spirit will be the sign and means by which the Apostles will be empowered to be His witnesses "beginning in Jerusalem, then Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth". Which is exactly what happens on Pentecost as recorded in Acts ch. 2, where God pours out the Spirit, and here St. Peter can stand up--filled with the Holy Spirit--and preach inspired truth about Jesus Christ to the Jewish pilgrims gathered in Jerusalem (Pentecost or Shavu'ot is one of the three pilgrim feasts of Judaism). And the Holy Spirit, by the preaching of Peter, converts those who hear the Gospel and they receive Baptism (yes, Baptism) and we read "about three thousand people were added to their number". The rest of the book of Acts is, as the name of the book indicates, the acts of the Apostles, the things the Apostles did after Pentecost--being the witnesses of Christ, the emissaries of Jesus to all nations--starting in Jerusalem, then Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth. The Acts of the Apostles ends with St. Paul the Apostle awaiting his trial in Rome while under house arrest.

There is simply no reason to interpret "baptism" or "baptize" to mean anything other than their plain sense meaning unless context indicates otherwise.

"He will baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire" is clearly a non-standard use of "baptize", which is why "with the Holy Spirit and with fire" is used provide additional contextual meaning. Likewise, saying the Israelites were baptized through the sea and the cloud provides the contextual information to let us know that this isn't a standard, plain sense meaning of "baptize"/"baptism".

If we read "baptism" and "baptize" in their ordinary and plain sense, well they just mean "baptism" and "baptize". In the same way that "bath" or "bathed" in their ordinary and plain sense just mean "bath" and "bathed". Just because I can say "the trees were bathed in the colors of autumn" doesn't mean that if I say "I took a bath this morning" that anyone should assume I took a bath in the colors of autumn. "I took a bath" means I took a bath. If I want to use "bath" in a non-standard way, I make it clear through context: "I took a mud bath", "the trees were bathed in the colors of autumn", "my wife's beautiful face was bathed in moonlight as we sat under the stars".

Saying "baptize" means "Holy Spirit" is like saying "bath" means "colors of autumn".

That's not how language works. And it's why Christians, since the beginning, have always understood that baptism means baptism means baptism.

Remember, the Christians of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th (etc) were speakers of the language in which the New Testament was written. They used Koine in their homes, at the marketplace, in their church services. They didn't have the New Testament translated for them, there were Christians who simply spoke--as their native tongue--the language of the New Testament. That's relevant here.

-CryptoLutheran

I do not see a verse where the word BAPTISM means WATER BAPTISM

Here is another example in 1 Cor 15:29 where they are BAPTIZED for the DEAD ?

Is the Greek word here just means taking a BATH ??

Here is another one , Why was Jesus WATER BAPTIZED , a figure of speech by John the BAPTISMA // BAPTIZER .

Or in Matt 3:11 John says , I indeed BAPTIZE you with WATER unto repentance , is it not important , what say you ??

dan p

 

[ViaCrucis]

I do not see a verse where the word BAPTISM means WATER BAPTISM

That is because you have made a personal decision to deliberately misread the plain meaning of Scripture in order to force your personal theological views upon the text.

Because it is obvious and clear. The eunuch said to Philip, "Look, here is water, what prevents me from being baptized?" Philip did not then say, "Oh silly eunuch, you have it wrong, baptism isn't about water at all". No, instead Philip baptized the eunuch in that water, and the eunuch became a Christian.

The text does not say, "Look, here is water, what prevents me from being water baptized?" Because that would be silly and redundant.

If I said, "I'm going to eat a hamburger" I don't need to tell you that I'm eating a beef patty with a bun hamburger, because "hamburger" already is sufficient information to let you know that it's a beef patty and a bun. If I wanted to say I was having something else, I'd say "chicken burger/sandwich" or "veggie burger", then you'd know that I'm using "burger"/"hamburger" in such a way as to mean something else beside the obvious and plain meaning.

That's how Scripture treats the word "baptize", "baptism", etc. The word, by itself, is enough to indicate that an application of water is involved--that doesn't need to be explicitly said, because that's what any first century reader would have understood.

"I'm going to wash my clothes" is enough information to know that I'm going to wash my clothes in water, as opposed to some other meaning of "wash". "I gave my dog a bath" is sufficient information to know that I'm going to wash my dog in water.

Scripture, sufficiently, tells us what baptism is, what baptism means, and that it involves the application of water for an explicitly Christian purpose. It requires a deliberate twisting, changing, and perverting of the Sacred Text to come away with a radically different meaning than what the plain words themselves mean, and how they would have been readily and easily understood to the original readers--and how Christians continued to read those words for hundreds and hundreds of years afterward.

Baptism means baptism. When Scripture intends to use this word in a more idiosyncratic way, it is clear from context, "baptize with the Holy Spirit" for example, or "they were baptized into Moses through the sea and the cloud", or when Jesus speaks of His death as a cup He must drink and a baptism He must undergo--and that His followers will share the same, meaning they too shall partake in suffering.

Such uses are rendered obvious from the context in Scripture. But when we read that St. Paul baptized the disciples of John the Baptist in Acts 19, and then laid hands on them; it's obvious what is meant: They were baptized, and then they had hands laid on them. The words on the page mean what they say, and say what they mean. There's no hidden or secret meaning here, the plain words are plain and mean what they look like they mean.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dan Perez]

Good day,

An exegetical question for you if you're willing. I am wrestling with Romans 6 and Paul's reference to baptism in v4. I always approached this text with the idea that Paul was referring to the rite of water baptism. After reading around on this, it seems like there are good reasons for rejecting this. (this is not about paedo/credo baptism)

Just consider these reasons which I found to be rather convincing. Could the same man that wrote,

• "I thank God I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius" and
• "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the Gospel." and
• "circumcision is nothing."

go on to write that by water baptism we are buried into Christ's death (Rom 6)? which I take to be a reference to union with Christ? How could Paul on the one hand show such disinterest in the outward ceremonies of baptism and circumcision and then teach that water baptism represents something as significant as "uniting us to Christ" in Romans 6? Nothing is more important for Paul than union with Christ; I think that is pretty clear. Furthermore, Paul seems quite uninterested in the ritual of water baptism. So....why do we believe that Paul is thinking of water baptism in Romans 6? Isn't it far more likely that Paul is referring here to Spirit baptism as in 1Cor 12:13? That seems to be a more consistent way to understand Romans 6.

Now I understand that all the commentators are against me on this; but why?

And in Eph 4:5 reads , ONE LORD , ONE FAITH , ONE BAPTISM >

Any one that checks the Greek text will see that it reads ONE BAPTISMA , is a Greek , NOUN and means it is speaking of a PERSON , the Holy Spirit .

This Greek word BAPTISMA is used 22 times from MATTHEW - 1 Peter 3 :21 .

If you believe in BAPTISM , why was Jesus WATER BAPTIZED by John ?

In 1 Cor 10:2 And were BAPTIZED unto Moses unto the CLOUD and unto the SEA >

So , with THOUSAND Jews ready to cross the RED SEA , who got water baptized ?


dan p

 

[Doug Brents]

And in Eph 4:5 reads , ONE LORD , ONE FAITH , ONE BAPTISM >

Any one that checks the Greek text will see that it reads ONE BAPTISMA , is a Greek , NOUN and means it is speaking of a PERSON , the Holy Spirit .

This Greek word BAPTISMA is used 22 times from MATTHEW - 1 Peter 3 :21 .

If you believe in BAPTISM , why was Jesus WATER BAPTIZED by John ?

In 1 Cor 10:2 And were BAPTIZED unto Moses unto the CLOUD and unto the SEA >

So , with THOUSAND Jews ready to cross the RED SEA , who got water baptized ?


dan p

Baptisma is a noun that refers not to a person, but to immersion the noun, not the action but the baptism itself.
I am going to immerse you. "to immerse" = verb = baptismo.
I checked the leak by immersion. "immersion" = noun = baptisma.
This has no impact on what the thing is being immersed into, and has no direct reference to the Holy Spirit.

Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness, as we are told in Matt 3:14. He had no sin to remove, but He was baptized as an example to us, and because it is a command for us who live under the New Covenant (and Jesus spanned the Old and New so He followed and obeyed both).

 

[Dan Perez]

Baptisma is a noun that refers not to a person, but to immersion the noun, not the action but the baptism itself.
I am going to immerse you. "to immerse" = verb = baptismo.
I checked the leak by immersion. "immersion" = noun = baptisma.
This has no impact on what the thing is being immersed into, and has no direct reference to the Holy Spirit.

Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness, as we are told in Matt 3:14. He had no sin to remove, but He was baptized as an example to us, and because it is a command for us who live under the New Covenant (and Jesus spanned the Old and New so He followed and obeyed both).

Since I believer that that the Greek word BAPTISMA is a person and that it is NOUN , PERIOD !!

Read Mark 7:4 where the translation is WASH is really the Greek word BAPTIZO // BAPTISM !!

Then in verse 8 , WASH is really the Greek word before BAPTISMOS , where the WASHED , pots and cups .

Then in Luke 11:38 The translation of washed BAPTISM // BAPTIZO really is the Greek BAPTIZED .

The nation of Israel did not know OR know what water baptism was , UNTIL John told them that they HAD TO BE WASHED as written in John 1:31 .and there are many more verse that say the same thing!!

Has anyone ever seen where WATER BAPTISM ever given to GENTILES ?

NEVER !!

DAN P

 

[Doug Brents]

Since I believer that that the Greek word BAPTISMA is a person and that it is NOUN , PERIOD !!

It doesn't matter one little bit what you "believer". What matters is what the word means. A noun can refer to a person, but it can also refer to a place, or a thing. In this case, it is a thing: immersion.

Read Mark 7:4 where the translation is WASH is really the Greek word BAPTIZO // BAPTISM !!

Then in verse 8 , WASH is really the Greek word before BAPTISMOS , where the WASHED , pots and cups .

Then in Luke 11:38 The translation of washed BAPTISM // BAPTIZO really is the Greek BAPTIZED .

The nation of Israel did not know OR know what water baptism was , UNTIL John told them that they HAD TO BE WASHED as written in John 1:31 .and there are many more verse that say the same thing!!

The Jews knew what baptism was, because it was a common thing in that time to be immersed into a group in order to be associated with that group.

Has anyone ever seen where WATER BAPTISM ever given to GENTILES ?
NEVER !!

You have never read Acts 10:47?
"Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"
The first Gentile converts to the faith were baptized in water in order to receive forgiveness of their sins (as Acts 2:38 says). Because Matt 28:19 says that it is for "all nations", and Mark 16:15 says it is for "all the world".

 

[Dan Perez]

It doesn't matter one little bit what you "believer". What matters is what the word means. A noun can refer to a person, but it can also refer to a place, or a thing. In this case, it is a thing: immersion.

The Jews knew what baptism was, because it was a common thing in that time to be immersed into a group in order to be associated with that group.

You have never read Acts 10:47?
"Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized, who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?"
The first Gentile converts to the faith were baptized in water in order to receive forgiveness of their sins (as Acts 2:38 says). Because Matt 28:19 says that it is for "all nations", and Mark 16:15 says it is for "all the world".

Yes I have read it and you say that you DID read it ?

It reads , Is not anyone able to forbid the WATER that these should not be baptized , PLEASE NOTICE THE FOLLOWING, WHO , RECEIVED the HOLY SPIRIT ----AS WE ALSO ?

The next question than is you have not BEEN , WATER BAPTIZED AS WE WERE IN Acts 2:38 !! In other words , you were not at the DAY OF PENTECOST as written in Acts 2:1---to verse 38 !!

I have yet see where BAPTISM or WATER BAPTISM is MANITORY for the BODY of CHRIST , , unless you have a verse that I yet not seen ?

dan p

 

[Doug Brents]

Yes I have read it and you say that you DID read it ?

It reads , Is not anyone able to forbid the WATER that these should not be baptized , PLEASE NOTICE THE FOLLOWING, WHO , RECEIVED the HOLY SPIRIT ----AS WE ALSO ?

The next question than is you have not BEEN , WATER BAPTIZED AS WE WERE IN Acts 2:38 !! In other words , you were not at the DAY OF PENTECOST as written in Acts 2:1---to verse 38 !!

I have yet see where BAPTISM or WATER BAPTISM is MANITORY for the BODY of CHRIST , , unless you have a verse that I yet not seen ?

dan p

Just wow. You really cannot understand simple English (translated from Greek, yes, I know). In Matt 28, Jesus commanded His Apostles (and through them, all of us who are in Christ) to go to "all the world"/"every nation" and make disciples of them. And those disciples are to be baptized by the teacher (not the Holy Spirit). This command of Jesus makes baptism a mandatory action by the teacher and by the disciple. Mark 16 restates this command (exact same event from another perspective), and he says that those who believe the Gospel and are baptized will be saved. Again, the mandate for baptism is clear (this time especially from the disciple's point of view), and we see that baptism comes before salvation is received, not after. These two verses alone mandate water baptism for every disciple of Jesus, and place that baptism as a condition for the reception of salvation from sin.

 

[Dan Perez]

Just wow. You really cannot understand simple English (translated from Greek, yes, I know). In Matt 28, Jesus commanded His Apostles (and through them, all of us who are in Christ) to go to "all the world"/"every nation" and make disciples of them. And those disciples are to be baptized by the teacher (not the Holy Spirit). This command of Jesus makes baptism a mandatory action by the teacher and by the disciple. Mark 16 restates this command (exact same event from another perspective), and he says that those who believe the Gospel and are baptized will be saved. Again, the mandate for baptism is clear (this time especially from the disciple's point of view), and we see that baptism comes before salvation is received, not after. These two verses alone mandate water baptism for every disciple of Jesus, and place that baptism as a condition for the reception of salvation from sin.

And I do understand Matt 28:19 that so-called GREAT COMMMISION was given to the 11 disciples in Matt 28:16 and NOT GIVEN to the BODY of CHRIST is what anyone and I have SEEN ,

And all dismiss verses in Mark 16:16-18 and in verse 16 they SHALL BE SVED // SOZO is in the FUTURE TENSE , in the PASSIVE VOICE , which means Christ is causing the ACTION , and is in the INDICATIVE MOOD and that means you BETTER believe it ;

Every where you see the Greek word SHALL , in verse 16-18 it is in the Greek FUTURE TENSE , PERIOD !!

dan p

 

[Doug Brents]

And I do understand Matt 28:19 that so-called GREAT COMMMISION was given to the 11 disciples in Matt 28:16 and NOT GIVEN to the BODY of CHRIST is what anyone and I have SEEN ,

Yes, this commission was given directly to the 11. And through them to every one of the rest of us who are in Christ. Look at what Jesus told the Apostles.
"Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to follow all that I commanded you; and behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age."
Is the great commission not a command of Jesus? If it is a command of Jesus [and it is], then it is part of what Jesus is teaching His Apostles (the 11 most important of His disciples) to go and teach to the other disciples. And for those disciples to teach to the next generation of disciples, ....

And all dismiss verses in Mark 16:16-18 and in verse 16 they SHALL BE SVED // SOZO is in the FUTURE TENSE , in the PASSIVE VOICE , which means Christ is causing the ACTION , and is in the INDICATIVE MOOD and that means you BETTER believe it ;

Every where you see the Greek word SHALL , in verse 16-18 it is in the Greek FUTURE TENSE , PERIOD !!

Yes, the power and action of actually removing sin (Col 2:11-12) is done by the Holy Spirit during water baptism (just as Jesus commanded the Apostles to do). The removing of sin occurs during baptism (so it is in the present), but the saving can also be said to occur at Judgement which would make it future. We have been saved (when Jesus died on the Cross), we are saved (because our sins are continuously removed), and we will be saved (when we stand before the Throne). All three tenses can be found in Scripture, and all three are correct.

 

[Soyeong]

Good day,

An exegetical question for you if you're willing. I am wrestling with Romans 6 and Paul's reference to baptism in v4. I always approached this text with the idea that Paul was referring to the rite of water baptism. After reading around on this, it seems like there are good reasons for rejecting this. (this is not about paedo/credo baptism)

Just consider these reasons which I found to be rather convincing. Could the same man that wrote,

• "I thank God I baptized none of you but Crispus and Gaius" and
• "Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the Gospel." and
• "circumcision is nothing."

go on to write that by water baptism we are buried into Christ's death (Rom 6)? which I take to be a reference to union with Christ? How could Paul on the one hand show such disinterest in the outward ceremonies of baptism and circumcision and then teach that water baptism represents something as significant as "uniting us to Christ" in Romans 6? Nothing is more important for Paul than union with Christ; I think that is pretty clear. Furthermore, Paul seems quite uninterested in the ritual of water baptism. So....why do we believe that Paul is thinking of water baptism in Romans 6? Isn't it far more likely that Paul is referring here to Spirit baptism as in 1Cor 12:13? That seems to be a more consistent way to understand Romans 6.

Now I understand that all the commentators are against me on this; but why?

Having the right motivation for doing something is important. While Paul said that circumcision has no value and that what matters is obeying the commands of God (1 Corinthians 7:19), he also said that circumcision has much value in every way (Romans 3:1-2) and that circumcision conditionally has value if we obey the Mosaic Law (Romans 2:25), so the issue is that circumcision has no inherent value and that is value is entirely derived from whether we obey the Mosaic Law. Paul spoke against becoming circumcised for the wrong reasons, such as because someone wanted to have a higher status or in order to earn their justification, but he did not speak against circumcision for the reasons for which God commanded it, such as if a Gentile wanted to eat of the Passover lamb (Exodus 12:48).

Likewise, if someone becomes baptized for the wrong reasons, then all they are accomplishing is getting wet. Paul did not want people to view themselves as having a higher status because of whom they got baptized by, but he did not speak against the significance of becoming baptized for the right reasons.

 

[Dan Perez]

Baptisma is a noun that refers not to a person, but to immersion the noun, not the action but the baptism itself.
I am going to immerse you. "to immerse" = verb = baptismo.
I checked the leak by immersion. "immersion" = noun = baptisma.
This has no impact on what the thing is being immersed into, and has no direct reference to the Holy Spirit.

Jesus was baptized to fulfill all righteousness, as we are told in Matt 3:14. He had no sin to remove, but He was baptized as an example to us, and because it is a command for us who live under the New Covenant (and Jesus spanned the Old and New so He followed and obeyed both).

I sure would that write where the Greek words , IMMERSE or IMMERSION are found in VINE'S GREEK DICTIONARY ?

So help me out ??

dan p

 

[Doug Brents]

I sure would that write where the Greek words , IMMERSE or IMMERSION are found in VINE'S GREEK DICTIONARY ?

So help me out ??

dan p

Help you out?
Help me out. Use better English to tell me what it is that you are asking, because I do not understand what you mean.

 

[Dan Perez]

Help you out?
Help me out. Use better English to tell me what it is that you are asking, because I do not understand what you mean.

I say where are there Greek words for IMMERSE or for IMMMERSION found in the Bible ??

dn p

 

[Doug Brents]

I say where are there Greek words for IMMERSE or for IMMMERSION found in the Bible ??

dn p

Seeing as how the New Testament Scriptures were written in Greek and not English, the English words "immerse" and "immersion" are not to be found in Scripture. However, the Greek words baptisma (which means immersion) and baptizmo (which means to immerse) are found in many places in Scripture. The problem we have in modern translation is that the translators of the KJV ran into a problem when they were translating from the Greek to English. They came to the Greek "baptisma" and "baptizo" which should have been translated immerse, but they had the practice of sprinkling and pouring. Now, they didn't want to reveal their own error by translating the words faithfully, so they decided to transliterate the words and create a new English word "baptize" and "baptism". These words could then be defined however the transliterators chose.

Baptizo primarily means to immerse. It can also be translated: to dip, wash, or plunge (BDAG, 164). In all instances the result is full immersion. In Everett Ferguson’s recent tome on baptism, Baptism in the early church, he spends over 10 pages citing extra biblical examples of the Greek use of baptizo. Here is his conclusion,
“Baptizo meant to dip, usually through submerging, but it also meant to overwhelm and so could be used whether the object was placed in an element (which was more common) or was overwhelmed by it (often in the metaphorical usages)…Pouring and sprinkling were distinct actions that were represented by different verbs and this usage too continued in Christian sources. When the latter speak of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit or the sprinkling of blood, they do not use baptize for these actions.”

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

What mode of baptism did John the Baptist employ?

John the Baptist was also confused for the Messiah, (John 1:19-20, 26) Why then are you baptizing, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”. This is partly due to the mode of Baptism that John was engaging in - that is - sprinkling:

Ezekiel 36:25 - Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

Isaiah 52:13-15 - Behold, My servant will prosper, He will be high and lifted up, and greatly exalted. Just as many were astonished at you, My people, So His appearance was marred more than any man, and His form more than the sons of men. Thus He will sprinkle many nations, Kings will shut their mouths on account of Him; For what had not been told them they will see, And what they had not heard they will understand.

The sprinkling of the nations was the work of the Messiah. If John was not baptizing by sprinkling, then Jews would not have asked if he was the Messiah. The OT prophecies do not depict the Messiah "dunking" many nations.

The Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist could only have been done by sprinkling. As a means of illustrating my point here are some early church drawings of baptisms being performed - they all indicate sprinkling and not immersing.

These immersionists here at CF certainly are beginning to die of a thousand cuts.

 

[Dan Perez]

What mode of baptism did John the Baptist employ?

John the Baptist was also confused for the Messiah, (John 1:19-20, 26) Why then are you baptizing, if you are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the Prophet?”. This is partly due to the mode of Baptism that John was engaging in - that is - sprinkling:

Ezekiel 36:25 - Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.

Isaiah 52:13-15 - Behold, My servant will prosper, He will be high and lifted up, and greatly exalted. Just as many were astonished at you, My people, So His appearance was marred more than any man, and His form more than the sons of men. Thus He will sprinkle many nations, Kings will shut their mouths on account of Him; For what had not been told them they will see, And what they had not heard they will understand.

The sprinkling of the nations was the work of the Messiah. If John was not baptizing by sprinkling, then Jews would not have asked if he was the Messiah. The OT prophecies do not depict the Messiah "dunking" many nations.

The Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist could only have been done by sprinkling. As a means of illustrating my point here are some early church drawings of baptisms being performed - they all indicate sprinkling and not immersing.

These immersionists here at CF certainly are beginning to die of a thousand cuts.

In Acts 13:24 , reads , John having proclaimed before ( THE ) presence of His entrance , a BA[TISMA // BAPTISM of REPENTANCE to all the people of Israel .

#1 BAPTISM is not talking about Water Baptism !!

#2 This was a BAPTISMA of REPENTANCE !!''

# 3 The Greek word BAPTISMA is a Noun , meaning it is talking abut a Person , meaning John !!

#4 What is the context , in Acts , mostly Israel !!

#5 When does any one Saved by Grace have to REPENT before one can be saved ?

#6 Is there REPENTANCE when a person accept Christ as savior , like in Rom 10:9 and 10 or in Eph 2:8 , for Gentiles NO !!

#7 But it is in Acts 2:38 Israel had to repent for Jesus , whom they , Israel , Crucified !!

dan p

 

[Doug Brents]

# 3 The Greek word BAPTISMA is a Noun , meaning it is talking abut a Person , meaning John !!

Dan, a noun does not only refer to Persons.
A noun can refer to a person, yes, but it can also refer to a place or a thing. Immersion is a thing. BAPTISMA refers to immersion, not John. Immersion can be in anything, water, the Spirit, fire, a language, etc. But in the case of NT baptism, the evidence of Scripture is that water is what we are immersed (baptized) into in order to receive salvation.

 

[Dan Perez]

Dan, a noun does not only refer to Persons.
A noun can refer to a person, yes, but it can also refer to a place or a thing. Immersion is a thing. BAPTISMA refers to immersion, not John. Immersion can be in anything, water, the Spirit, fire, a language, etc. But in the case of NT baptism, the evidence of Scripture is that water is what we are immersed (baptized) into in order to receive salvation.

Yes that is true and you say that ONE LORD , ONE FAITH , ONE BAPTISMA , which the Greek text says it is means that it is a Thing , or can mean a Place , or can mean Action , etc ??

dan p