Baptism: Why immersion ONLY is wrong

[Mungo]

Baptism: Why immersion ONLY is wrong

Point 1.
Scripture doesn’t say that baptism is only by immersion. There is no proof from scripture.


Point 2.
Argument from etymology is a false argument.

I say etymology because the Jews took a Greek word out of its original Greek context and used it for the name of a Jewish ritual. Baptism is the name of a ritual not a description of its conduct, though obviously the Jews didn’t pick a word at random. The Jewish ritual is the tevilah (ritual washing/bathing) in a mikvah. However the Greek bath was a place associated with gossip (often crude) communal nude bathing and homosexuality so they used baptizo instead and seem to have coined the word baptisma.


Point 3.
It is therefore necessary to show how the Jews and early Christians used the term baptise (and baptism) and not just take the Greek word and apply it to a different context.

There is nothing specific in scripture, although it is unlikely that the Ethiopian or the jailor could have been immersed in water.

The eunuch was baptised by a desert road. Could he have been immersed?

The jailer was baptised in the middle of the night. Where was he immersed?

We do though have one early document from outside scripture to indicate that immersion was not always done.

From the first century document the Didache
"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days" (Didache 7:1 [ca. A.D. 70]).


Point 4.
The Jewish us of baptizo has a wide range of meanings from immerse to just wash, or even come into contact with water.

“I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, and all of them were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea”. (1Cor 10:1-2).

Were they immersed in Moses?

Were they immersed in the sea? – No because they went through on dry land.

In Daniel 4:23 the Greek LXX says that Nebuchadnezzar was baptised in dew.

“And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing [baptismous] of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables.” (Mk 7:4).

Did they really immersed tables?


Point 5.
The Jewish tevilah had several uses but one of them was for ritual purity (and hence the forgiveness of sin).

“Take the Levites from among the Israelites and cleanse them. Thus you shall do to them, to cleanse them: sprinkle the water of purification on them, have them shave their whole body with a razor and wash their clothes, and so cleanse themselves……The Levites purified themselves from sin and washed their clothes” (Number 8: 6-8 & 21).
Note the sprinkling.

This was about physical cleanliness, the washing of the body.
Baptism is about internal cleanliness, the forgiveness of sin. The washing with water is symbolic of the inner purification by Jesus.

Hence Peter says referring to Noah & his family being saved through water
“Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience” (1Pet 3:21).
The clear conscience being because our sins are forgiven.

And Paul referring to his baptism reports Ananias as saying
Get up and have yourself baptised and your sins washed away, calling upon his name. (Acts 22:16).


Point 6.
Baptism was prophesied on the OT by Ezekial:
“I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts. I will put my spirit within you….” (Ez 36:25-27)
Note this is about forgiveness of sin and also God giving us the Holy Spirit to dwell in us. This is not the outpouring of the Holy Spirit prophesied by Joel and quoted by Peter after Pentecost.
Note the sprinkling.


Point 7
Since the action of the water washing us in baptism is only symbolic of what Jesus is doing in “washing” away our sins whether the symbolism is full immersion or simple pouring water over someone is irrelevant. I would agree that full immersion gives a fuller symbolism but it is not necessary.

Point 8
‘While meeting with them, he enjoined them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for “the promise of the Father about which you have heard me speak; for John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”’ (Acts 1:4-5)

Jesus tells them they will be baptised in the Holy Spirit .

He says it is the promise of the Father.

And how was this baptism done?

This happened at Pentecost.

And afterwards Peter explains it as follows (Acts 16-18):

this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel:
‘It will come to pass in the last days,’ God says,
‘that I will pour out a portion of my spirit upon all flesh.
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your young men shall see visions,
your old men shall dream dreams.
Indeed, upon my servants and my handmaids
I will pour out a portion of my spirit in those days,

And in Acts 2:32-33
God raised this Jesus; of this we are all witnesses. Exalted at the right hand of God, he received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father and poured it forth, as you (both) see and hear.

The promise of the Father – BAPTISM in the Holy Spirit is described as POURED not IMMERSED.

Point 9.
And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove (Mk 1:10)

And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught up Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. (Acts 8:39)

Some claim that “came up out of the water” means people were fully immersed in baptism

"came up out of the water" doesn't mean they were fully submerged.

Water is always below where you are, so you go down into it and come up out of it.

People standing on the bank of the Jordan would have gone down into the water whether they were then fully submerged or just stood there while John the Baptist poured water over them. Similarly after being immersed, or having water poured over them, they would have come up out of the water to join others on the bank.

Consider these two scriptures:
The maiden was very fair to look upon, a virgin, whom no man had known. She went down to the spring, and filled her jar, and came up. (Gen 24:15)
Did Rebekah immerse herself in the spring?

After two whole years, Pharaoh dreamed that he was standing by the Nile, 2 and behold, there came up out of the Nile seven cows sleek and fat, and they fed in the reed grass. 3 And behold, seven other cows, gaunt and thin, came up out of the Nile after them, and stood by the other cows on the bank of the Nile. (Gen 41:1-3)
Were the cows originally immersed in the Nile, or just standing in it?

Moreover in Acts 3:9 it says THEY came up out of the water. Was Philip fully immersed as well?

 

[domenic]

All roads lead, and end somewhere. Follow your road to where it leads, and ends. In the end, it is God who will judge.

 

[Mungo]

All roads lead, and end somewhere. Follow your road to where it leads, and ends. In the end, it is God who will judge.

The answer my friend is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in the wind (Bob Dylan)


Now that we have both got our bit of homespun philosophy out - do you have a response to what I said?

 

[Polt]

I strongly disagree some Catholic doctrines. But, many doctrines of the Catholic Church are more defensible than many Protestants realize. Besides, doctrines of many modern non-Catholic Churches are getting as bad or worse than any Catholic doctrine.

Sprinkling is legitimate baptism. If it's done in faith, why would it be invalided by methodology? And, for those who always rip on the Catholic Church for rituals, this question is doubly pertinent.

 

[joshhuntnm]

The greek word itself means to immerse. I ran across on place where it was used to speak of washing dishes. Waht do you do with your dishes -- sprinkle them?

 

[Polt]

The greek word itself means to immerse. I ran across on place where it was used to speak of washing dishes. Waht do you do with your dishes -- sprinkle them?

Actually, dishwashers only sprinkle dishes. And, hand washing is commonly done without submersion. Even if the word does mean submersion, the points made in the opening post would still need to be addressed.

 

[Wormwood]

Mungo,

I could not disagree more.

Point 1: Actually its quite the opposite. Every text that describes baptism (not mentioning the meaning of the word itself) has people going down into and coming up out of water.
Point 2: The word baptism, literally means "to dunk, to dip." You are basically arguing that the word "dunk" could mean something other than dunking. Its nonsensical.
Point 3: This doesn't make any sense to me. There is nothing to suggest that John's baptism or Christian baptism were merely rehashed ritual purification rites. Those rights may have foreshadowed Christian baptism, but that does not equate the two. Rather, the Qumran community practiced immersion for those seeking to be initiated into their eschatological community. This is probably the closest semblance to what John and the early Christians were doing...forming a new community through immersion.
Point 4: Actually, the text says they went through the water. Clearly this is another foreshadowing of what the actual meaning of baptism suggests...but they went through the Red Sea with water on each side...they were not sprinkled with the Red Sea. This text has no bearing on the actual practice...its conveying spiritual meaning.
Point 5: Again, you are trying to make ritual cleansing rites of Hebrews and Christian baptism one and the same. They are not. This is like arguing that Jesus body should have been burnt after he was crucified to be an acceptable offering to God. You are trying to force comparisons rather than just simply looking at the teaching and precedents of the NT. We are immersed into his burial and raised to new life (unless you bury your dead by sprinkling dirt on their heads). Moreover, Ananias words were not speaking of symbolism, but actually being washed through the act.
Point 6: This sprinkling has to do with blood of the covenant, not baptism.
Point 7: Symbolism means that it is not necessary nor does it actually really accomplish anything. If it is merely a symbol then it is not the real thing. Baptism, rather, is a sacrament. Ananias did not tell Saul to be baptized merely as a "symbol" of what already happened to Saul. Rather, washing took place in baptism. Big difference. Moreover, by your rationale, why not splat someone with paintballs. After all, its only a symbol so it doesn't really matter what you do or how you do it.
Point 8: Another leap. Why not drop birds on our heads instead of water...after all the Spirit decends as a dove too. Oh, and maybe pouring fire on our heads like the Apostles?
Point 9. I find these to be very silly arguments. First, it is clear that he went down into the water to be "baptized" (again...literally meaning to dunk or dip). So even if their "ascending out of" water indicates their coming out of the body of water and not the literally dunking...they went into the body so the Ethiopian could be dunked. Water was not taken to the Ethiopian to pour it on his head. Second, the earliest churches did not have little bowls to sprinkle people with. They painstakingly build large baptistries for dunking converts. Third, the Genesis 24 passage is completely irrelevant. It says she "went down TO the spring" not "down into (eis) the water."

Take a look at your arguments. Bascially these are arguments to try to explain away clear ideas. None of these actually SUPPORT sprinking, but are pretty much all attempts to explain away immersion. I think when a doctrine is derived merely by explaining away texts rather than actually finding support texts...there is a problem. You are saying basically that because Scripture doesnt say "only immersion" that it means sprinkling is okay. Why would it have to say that when the word literally means immerse???? Then you say the word doesn't mean what it actually means. Look at any Greek lexicon. Actually the word is an onomatopoeia. This means that it is a word that sounds like the action. Bap-tise sounds like someone doing a cannonball in a pool of water. Not someone taking a shower. Then you try to use OT ritual cleansings to explain away both the meaning of the word baptize and the historical and clear biblical references to what happened in baptism (someone got dunked). Then you try to point to the Israelites and the Red Sea to explain away immersion, but this looks much more like passing through water than being sprinkled with it to me. Moreover, Peter's discussion of the flood and salvation through water also suggests the immersion and drowing of evil to save the righteous. You point to every OT sprinking passage you can...even those that deal with sprinkling covenant blood to try to do away with the clear teaching of NT immersion. They are not the same thing. Let the NT act of Christian baptism speak for itself. Then you argue that its all symbolic anyway so it doesn't matter how you do it and talk about the pouring of the Spirit as another attempt to explain away the act and meaning of baptism. This could just as likely indicate to the water pouring over someones head as they emerge out of water. In any event, it is no argument for sprinkling. Finally you say that "they" came up out of water so it means this isnt the act of emerging from complete immersion. But dont you find it striking that they found a large body of water and decided to both walk down into it. Seems like a strange idea if all they needed was a handful of water to wet the head as a symbolic gesture.

So not only are all these arguments NOT supportive of sprinkling and only used to try to explain away immersion, but they do not deal with key texts that connect baptism with burial, being raised with Christ, being washed (literally bathed) and being clothed with Christ. None of these concepts mesh with sprinkling. It sounds more to me like you have made up your mind and are looking for ways to justified a preconcived view of baptism than a fair and contexual look at scripture.

 

[Alanforchrist]

Baptism: Why immersion ONLY is wrong

Point 1.
Scripture doesn’t say that baptism is only by immersion. There is no proof from scripture.


Point 2.
Argument from etymology is a false argument.

I say etymology because the Jews took a Greek word out of its original Greek context and used it for the name of a Jewish ritual. Baptism is the name of a ritual not a description of its conduct, though obviously the Jews didn’t pick a word at random. The Jewish ritual is the tevilah (ritual washing/bathing) in a mikvah. However the Greek bath was a place associated with gossip (often crude) communal nude bathing and homosexuality so they used baptizo instead and seem to have coined the word baptisma.


Point 3.
It is therefore necessary to show how the Jews and early Christians used the term baptise (and baptism) and not just take the Greek word and apply it to a different context.

There is nothing specific in scripture, although it is unlikely that the Ethiopian or the jailor could have been immersed in water.

The eunuch was baptised by a desert road. Could he have been immersed?

The jailer was baptised in the middle of the night. Where was he immersed?

We do though have one early document from outside scripture to indicate that immersion was not always done.

From the first century document the Didache
"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. If you have no living water, then baptize in other water, and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Before baptism, let the one baptizing and the one to be baptized fast, as also any others who are able. Command the one who is to be baptized to fast beforehand for one or two days" (Didache 7:1 [ca. A.D. 70]).


Point 4.
The Jewish us of baptizo has a wide range of meanings from immerse to just wash, or even come into contact with water.

“I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, and all of them were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea”. (1Cor 10:1-2).

Were they immersed in Moses?

Were they immersed in the sea? – No because they went through on dry land.

In Daniel 4:23 the Greek LXX says that Nebuchadnezzar was baptised in dew.

“And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing [baptismous] of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables.” (Mk 7:4).
Did they really immersed tables?


Point 5.
The Jewish tevilah had several uses but one of them was for ritual purity (and hence the forgiveness of sin).

“Take the Levites from among the Israelites and cleanse them. Thus you shall do to them, to cleanse them: sprinkle the water of purification on them, have them shave their whole body with a razor and wash their clothes, and so cleanse themselves……The Levites purified themselves from sin and washed their clothes” (Number 8: 6-8 & 21).
Note the sprinkling.

This was about physical cleanliness, the washing of the body.
Baptism is about internal cleanliness, the forgiveness of sin. The washing with water is symbolic of the inner purification by Jesus.

Hence Peter says referring to Noah & his family being saved through water
“Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a clear conscience” (1Pet 3:21).
The clear conscience being because our sins are forgiven.

And Paul referring to his baptism reports Ananias as saying
Get up and have yourself baptised and your sins washed away, calling upon his name. (Acts 22:16).


Point 6.
Baptism was prophesied on the OT by Ezekial:
“I will sprinkle clean water upon you to cleanse you from all your impurities, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. I will give you a new heart and place a new spirit within you, taking from your bodies your stony hearts and giving you natural hearts. I will put my spirit within you….” (Ez 36:25-27)
Note this is about forgiveness of sin and also God giving us the Holy Spirit to dwell in us. This is not the outpouring of the Holy Spirit prophesied by Joel and quoted by Peter after Pentecost.
Note the sprinkling.


Point 7
Since the action of the water washing us in baptism is only symbolic of what Jesus is doing in “washing” away our sins whether the symbolism is full immersion or simple pouring water over someone is irrelevant. I would agree that full immersion gives a fuller symbolism but it is not necessary.

Point 8
‘While meeting with them, he enjoined them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for “the promise of the Father about which you have heard me speak; for John baptized with water, but in a few days you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”’ (Acts 1:4-5)

Jesus tells them they will be baptised in the Holy Spirit .

He says it is the promise of the Father.

And how was this baptism done?

This happened at Pentecost.

And afterwards Peter explains it as follows (Acts 16-18):

this is what was spoken through the prophet Joel:
‘It will come to pass in the last days,’ God says,
‘that I will pour out a portion of my spirit upon all flesh.
Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy,
your young men shall see visions,
your old men shall dream dreams.
Indeed, upon my servants and my handmaids
I will pour out a portion of my spirit in those days,

And in Acts 2:32-33
God raised this Jesus; of this we are all witnesses. Exalted at the right hand of God, he received the promise of the Holy Spirit from the Father and poured it forth, as you (both) see and hear.

The promise of the Father – BAPTISM in the Holy Spirit is described as POURED not IMMERSED.

Point 9.
And when he came up out of the water, immediately he saw the heavens opened and the Spirit descending upon him like a dove (Mk 1:10)

And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught up Philip; and the eunuch saw him no more, and went on his way rejoicing. (Acts 8:39)

Some claim that “came up out of the water” means people were fully immersed in baptism

"came up out of the water" doesn't mean they were fully submerged.

Water is always below where you are, so you go down into it and come up out of it.

People standing on the bank of the Jordan would have gone down into the water whether they were then fully submerged or just stood there while John the Baptist poured water over them. Similarly after being immersed, or having water poured over them, they would have come up out of the water to join others on the bank.

Consider these two scriptures:
The maiden was very fair to look upon, a virgin, whom no man had known. She went down to the spring, and filled her jar, and came up. (Gen 24:15)
Did Rebekah immerse herself in the spring?

After two whole years, Pharaoh dreamed that he was standing by the Nile, 2 and behold, there came up out of the Nile seven cows sleek and fat, and they fed in the reed grass. 3 And behold, seven other cows, gaunt and thin, came up out of the Nile after them, and stood by the other cows on the bank of the Nile. (Gen 41:1-3)
Were the cows originally immersed in the Nile, or just standing in it?

Moreover in Acts 3:9 it says THEY came up out of the water. Was Philip fully immersed as well?

[1]The Bible's original Greek, Says baptism is by tottal immeresion, So the Bible does say baptism is tottal immersion, catholics have to say it isn't, Because they will have to admit they aren't baptised....And they ARE NOT baptised, Unles they have been tottaly immersed in water..FACT.
Every Greek meaning for baptism, Is by immersion, Even wash or dip, The part that is washed or diped, Has to be compleatly covered.

[2]The Holy Spirit was poured out so we can be baptised into Him..[Immersed into Him].

[3]You are compleatly twisting the truth, But thats what catholics have to do..FACT.

I strongly disagree some Catholic doctrines. But, many doctrines of the Catholic Church are more defensible than many Protestants realize. Besides, doctrines of many modern non-Catholic Churches are getting as bad or worse than any Catholic doctrine.

Sprinkling is legitimate baptism. If it's done in faith, why would it be invalided by methodology? And, for those who always rip on the Catholic Church for rituals, this question is doubly pertinent.

None of the catholic doctrines are Biblical, I know what the Bible teaches, And I know the catholic teach, And I know they aren't the same things.

Sprinkling is unbiblical and un-legitimate.

 

[Mungo]

The greek word itself means to immerse. I ran across on place where it was used to speak of washing dishes. Waht do you do with your dishes -- sprinkle them?

See Points 2,3 & 4

[1]The Bible's original Greek, Says baptism is by tottal immeresion, So the Bible does say baptism is tottal immersion, catholics have to say it isn't, Because they will have to admit they aren't baptised....And they ARE NOT baptised, Unles they have been tottaly immersed in water..FACT.
Every Greek meaning for baptism, Is by immersion, Even wash or dip, The part that is washed or diped, Has to be compleatly covered.

If the Bible says that baptism is by immersion then give me the chapter & verse.

[2]The Holy Spirit was poured out so we can be baptised into Him..[Immersed into Him].

[3]You are compleatly twisting the truth, But thats what catholics have to do..FACT.

It says poured not immersed but you try and pretend that poured actually means immersed - and then YOU accuse me of twisting the truth.

None of the catholic doctrines are Biblical, I know what the Bible teaches, And I know the catholic teach, And I know they aren't the same things.

You don't know anything of the sort. All you demonstrated is your ignorance

Sprinkling is unbiblical and un-legitimate.

Actually we don't sprinkle. Baptism in the Catholic Church is done by immersions or pouring.

Mungo,

I could not disagree more.

Point 1: Actually its quite the opposite. Every text that describes baptism (not mentioning the meaning of the word itself) has people going down into and coming up out of water.
Point 2: The word baptism, literally means "to dunk, to dip." You are basically arguing that the word "dunk" could mean something other than dunking. Its nonsensical.
Point 3: This doesn't make any sense to me. There is nothing to suggest that John's baptism or Christian baptism were merely rehashed ritual purification rites. Those rights may have foreshadowed Christian baptism, but that does not equate the two. Rather, the Qumran community practiced immersion for those seeking to be initiated into their eschatological community. This is probably the closest semblance to what John and the early Christians were doing...forming a new community through immersion.
Point 4: Actually, the text says they went through the water. Clearly this is another foreshadowing of what the actual meaning of baptism suggests...but they went through the Red Sea with water on each side...they were not sprinkled with the Red Sea. This text has no bearing on the actual practice...its conveying spiritual meaning.
Point 5: Again, you are trying to make ritual cleansing rites of Hebrews and Christian baptism one and the same. They are not. This is like arguing that Jesus body should have been burnt after he was crucified to be an acceptable offering to God. You are trying to force comparisons rather than just simply looking at the teaching and precedents of the NT. We are immersed into his burial and raised to new life (unless you bury your dead by sprinkling dirt on their heads). Moreover, Ananias words were not speaking of symbolism, but actually being washed through the act.
Point 6: This sprinkling has to do with blood of the covenant, not baptism.
Point 7: Symbolism means that it is not necessary nor does it actually really accomplish anything. If it is merely a symbol then it is not the real thing. Baptism, rather, is a sacrament. Ananias did not tell Saul to be baptized merely as a "symbol" of what already happened to Saul. Rather, washing took place in baptism. Big difference. Moreover, by your rationale, why not splat someone with paintballs. After all, its only a symbol so it doesn't really matter what you do or how you do it.
Point 8: Another leap. Why not drop birds on our heads instead of water...after all the Spirit decends as a dove too. Oh, and maybe pouring fire on our heads like the Apostles?
Point 9. I find these to be very silly arguments. First, it is clear that he went down into the water to be "baptized" (again...literally meaning to dunk or dip). So even if their "ascending out of" water indicates their coming out of the body of water and not the literally dunking...they went into the body so the Ethiopian could be dunked. Water was not taken to the Ethiopian to pour it on his head. Second, the earliest churches did not have little bowls to sprinkle people with. They painstakingly build large baptistries for dunking converts. Third, the Genesis 24 passage is completely irrelevant. It says she "went down TO the spring" not "down into (eis) the water."

Take a look at your arguments. Bascially these are arguments to try to explain away clear ideas. None of these actually SUPPORT sprinking, but are pretty much all attempts to explain away immersion. I think when a doctrine is derived merely by explaining away texts rather than actually finding support texts...there is a problem. You are saying basically that because Scripture doesnt say "only immersion" that it means sprinkling is okay. Why would it have to say that when the word literally means immerse???? Then you say the word doesn't mean what it actually means. Look at any Greek lexicon. Actually the word is an onomatopoeia. This means that it is a word that sounds like the action. Bap-tise sounds like someone doing a cannonball in a pool of water. Not someone taking a shower. Then you try to use OT ritual cleansings to explain away both the meaning of the word baptize and the historical and clear biblical references to what happened in baptism (someone got dunked). Then you try to point to the Israelites and the Red Sea to explain away immersion, but this looks much more like passing through water than being sprinkled with it to me. Moreover, Peter's discussion of the flood and salvation through water also suggests the immersion and drowing of evil to save the righteous. You point to every OT sprinking passage you can...even those that deal with sprinkling covenant blood to try to do away with the clear teaching of NT immersion. They are not the same thing. Let the NT act of Christian baptism speak for itself. Then you argue that its all symbolic anyway so it doesn't matter how you do it and talk about the pouring of the Spirit as another attempt to explain away the act and meaning of baptism. This could just as likely indicate to the water pouring over someones head as they emerge out of water. In any event, it is no argument for sprinkling. Finally you say that "they" came up out of water so it means this isnt the act of emerging from complete immersion. But dont you find it striking that they found a large body of water and decided to both walk down into it. Seems like a strange idea if all they needed was a handful of water to wet the head as a symbolic gesture.

So not only are all these arguments NOT supportive of sprinkling and only used to try to explain away immersion, but they do not deal with key texts that connect baptism with burial, being raised with Christ, being washed (literally bathed) and being clothed with Christ. None of these concepts mesh with sprinkling. It sounds more to me like you have made up your mind and are looking for ways to justified a preconcived view of baptism than a fair and contexual look at scripture.

You provide no biblical support for any of your opinions.

Moreover you seem to be missing the points of much of what I said or distort what I said.




I find it interesting that I provide numerous biblical texts to support my points but so far nobody has provided any to refute them.

 

[Wormwood]

Well, actually you provided some OT purification rite passages to try to explain away both the clear meaning of the word as well as the the very clear implications of going down "into" a body of water. Your arguement is like trying to argue that one can have faith without believing. The Koine Greek means to dunk or dip. It is you, not I, who is trying to explain that away. So basically every passage that says that he/she/they were baptized literally means he/she/they were dunked. You are trying to explain away a word by giving it some liturgical meaning which is not how early Christians practiced or understood that word.

As far as your passages go, how does sprinkling convey any of this?

Romans 6:3-4 - baptized "into" his death and raised to live a new life.
1 Cor. 12:13 - by one Spirit we are all baptized "into" one body.
Eph. 5:26 - washing (literally batheing) of water with the word.
Col. 2:11-13 - buried with Christ in baptism.
Gal. 3:26-27 - baptized "into" Christ and "clothed" with Christ.

So I dont see how any of the passages you listed 1) explain away the meaning of the NT word baptize, or 2) show that sprinkling can convey the meaning of baptized into death, buried with Christ, baptized into his body, bathed with water, or clothed with Christ.

 

[Alanforchrist]

See Points 2,3 & 4


If the Bible says that baptism is by immersion then give me the chapter & verse.


It says poured not immersed but you try and pretend that poured actually means immersed - and then YOU accuse me of twisting the truth.


You don't know anything of the sort. All you demonstrated is your ignorance


Actually we don't sprinkle. Baptism in the Catholic Church is done by immersions or pouring.


You provide no biblical support for any of your opinions.

Moreover you seem to be missing the points of much of what I said or distort what I said.




I find it interesting that I provide numerous biblical texts to support my points but so far nobody has provided any to refute them.

I told you that the original Greek meaning for, "Baptism", Is tottal immersion.
I told you that the Holy Spirit was poured out to "BAPTISE us. He gushes into us and out of us, Jn 7; 37--39.

You DONT give scriptures to support your points, You twist them..GET IT RIGHT.
And we all have refuted your view... I guess you must be still asleep.

 

[Episkopos]

Sola Trempa?

Sola Dunka?

 

[Wormwood]

Sola oratio fide?

Sola confiteanture Christus?

Sola pœniténtia?

 

[Mungo]

Well, actually you provided some OT purification rite passages to try to explain away both the clear meaning of the word as well as the the very clear implications of going down "into" a body of water. Your arguement is like trying to argue that one can have faith without believing. The Koine Greek means to dunk or dip. It is you, not I, who is trying to explain that away. So basically every passage that says that he/she/they were baptized literally means he/she/they were dunked. You are trying to explain away a word by giving it some liturgical meaning which is not how early Christians practiced or understood that word.

As far as your passages go, how does sprinkling convey any of this?

Romans 6:3-4 - baptized "into" his death and raised to live a new life.
1 Cor. 12:13 - by one Spirit we are all baptized "into" one body.
Eph. 5:26 - washing (literally batheing) of water with the word.
Col. 2:11-13 - buried with Christ in baptism.
Gal. 3:26-27 - baptized "into" Christ and "clothed" with Christ.

So I dont see how any of the passages you listed 1) explain away the meaning of the NT word baptize, or 2) show that sprinkling can convey the meaning of baptized into death, buried with Christ, baptized into his body, bathed with water, or clothed with Christ.

OT purification passages are shadows of baptism. They point to it and what it will do for us. I'm not arguing that baptism is exactly the same.

Going down into a body of water does not mean submersion. If a child goes down into the sea to paddle they are not immersing themselves but they go down into the sea and come up out of it.

The maiden was very fair to look upon, a virgin, whom no man had known. She went down to the spring, and filled her jar, and came up. (Gen 24:15)
Did Rebekah immerse herself in the spring?
You provide no answer to my question.

After two whole years, Pharaoh dreamed that he was standing by the Nile, 2 and behold, there came up out of the Nile seven cows sleek and fat, and they fed in the reed grass. 3 And behold, seven other cows, gaunt and thin, came up out of the Nile after them, and stood by the other cows on the bank of the Nile. (Gen 41:1-3)
Were the cows originally immersed in the Nile, or just standing in it?
You provide no answer to my question.

As I have already pointed out the etymology of the name of a ritual does not necessarily describe the process of the ritual. Moreover the word baptismos is used when total immersion is not carried out.


“I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, and all of them were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea”. (1Cor 10:1-2).

Were they immersed in Moses?

Were they immersed in the sea? – No because they went through on dry land.

In Daniel 4:23 the Greek LXX says that Nebuchadnezzar was baptised in dew.

“And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing [baptismous] of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables.” (Mk 7:4).
Did they really immersed tables?

You provide no answer to my questions.

As regards your question about sprinking. We do not baptise by sprinkling so your questions are irrelevant.

I told you that the original Greek meaning for, "Baptism", Is tottal immersion.
I told you that the Holy Spirit was poured out to "BAPTISE us. He gushes into us and out of us, Jn 7; 37--39.

You DONT give scriptures to support your points, You twist them..GET IT RIGHT.
And we all have refuted your view... I guess you must be still asleep.

What is important is not what the original Greek means (and I dispute that is necessarily means total immersion) but how the word is used in therms of Christian baptism.

I don't twist scriptures. Of course I cannot accuse you of that because you never give any. All you give is your opinions.

Moreover you are confusing the word reply with refute.

 

[Alanforchrist]

OT purification passages are shadows of baptism. They point to it and what it will do for us. I'm not arguing that baptism is exactly the same.

Going down into a body of water does not mean submersion. If a child goes down into the sea to paddle they are not immersing themselves but they go down into the sea and come up out of it.

The maiden was very fair to look upon, a virgin, whom no man had known. She went down to the spring, and filled her jar, and came up. (Gen 24:15)
Did Rebekah immerse herself in the spring?
You provide no answer to my question.

After two whole years, Pharaoh dreamed that he was standing by the Nile, 2 and behold, there came up out of the Nile seven cows sleek and fat, and they fed in the reed grass. 3 And behold, seven other cows, gaunt and thin, came up out of the Nile after them, and stood by the other cows on the bank of the Nile. (Gen 41:1-3)
Were the cows originally immersed in the Nile, or just standing in it?
You provide no answer to my question.

As I have already pointed out the etymology of the name of a ritual does not necessarily describe the process of the ritual. Moreover the word baptismos is used when total immersion is not carried out.


“I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, that our ancestors were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea, and all of them were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea”. (1Cor 10:1-2).

Were they immersed in Moses?

Were they immersed in the sea? – No because they went through on dry land.

In Daniel 4:23 the Greek LXX says that Nebuchadnezzar was baptised in dew.

“And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing [baptismous] of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables.” (Mk 7:4).
Did they really immersed tables?

You provide no answer to my questions.

As regards your question about sprinking. We do not baptise by sprinkling so your questions are irrelevant.


What is important is not what the original Greek means (and I dispute that is necessarily means total immersion) but how the word is used in therms of Christian baptism.

I don't twist scriptures. Of course I cannot accuse you of that because you never give any. All you give is your opinions.

Moreover you are confusing the word reply with refute.

You have to say the original Greek isn't important, Because you know it proves you wrong.
You have to dispute what baptism means, Because you know the truth proves you wrong.

You do twist the scriptures, And I have given you the true meaning of the Greek scriptures.

 

[Wormwood]

Mungo,

Even if baptism foreshadows the purification rites of Levites and so forth, this does not change the clear communication of the mode of baptism. Baptism means immersion. You have yet to adequately explain this very clear concept away.

The maiden was very fair to look upon, a virgin, whom no man had known. She went down to the spring, and filled her jar, and came up. (Gen 24:15)
Did Rebekah immerse herself in the spring?
You provide no answer to my question.

After two whole years, Pharaoh dreamed that he was standing by the Nile, 2 and behold, there came up out of the Nile seven cows sleek and fat, and they fed in the reed grass. 3 And behold, seven other cows, gaunt and thin, came up out of the Nile after them, and stood by the other cows on the bank of the Nile. (Gen 41:1-3)
Were the cows originally immersed in the Nile, or just standing in it?
You provide no answer to my question.

I already responded to these statements, but I will address them more specifically if you like.
Prepositions matter. If I say I sat on a house it means quite a different thing than if I said I sat in a house. The virgin in (actually its Gen. 24:16) your text went down (epi - literally "upon") the spring filled the jar and came up." This is quite different from going down (eis) "into" the water and then coming out. So, other than this verse talking about someone going down to a body of water, there is no connection here as one gets on a spring to fill up a jar and the other goes into water to be "immersed/baptized."

Well, if we take the text literally, they came up out of the water. Perhaps they walked out from under the water in the dream and stopped in the reed grass to eat while the others came up out of the water and just stood by the former. It's a dream...not unlike Johns vision of a beast coming out of the water in revelation. Are you suggesting the beast did not come up out of the water but merely was splashing around in the shallow water? If the text says something came up out of the water, then we must assume that thing was in the water and quite possibly submerged in the water just as if I said, "I came up out of the water." Your first impression would be that I was entirely immersed, but if I give you further detail to suggest that I was only wading in water and I walked out of it then I would provide further clarity to the former statement.

The passage in 1 Cor.... yes, they were "immersed" in Moses. Clearly this is a figurative use where the passing through water and cloud suggests they, by passing through that water, had become united with Moses. So what if they passed by on dry land! They went through water and this is a figurative baptism that is related to the baptism of Christ that brings us out of slavery. Are you suggesting we not use water at all because they walked on dry land?? You are straining for a gnat here.

The Septuagint rendering I have uses αὐλίζω which means to find lodging or live in. "In the dew of heaven you will find lodging"

I see no word for baptism here. I'll look more when I have time.

 

[aspen]

i was lead into sin because a protestant church i joined when i a teenager woulg not accept the baptism of another portestant church i was a member of as a child. Rebaptism is a sin. Thankfully, the catholic church accepts all trinitarian baptisms.

 

[Episkopos]

Why does the RCC NOT want to baptize in full immersion when they so easily could?

 

[aspen]

the RCC does baptise with full immersion. new churches are built with immersion baptismals.

 

[Levi]

the RCC does baptise with full immersion. new churches are built with immersion baptismals.

You don't dunk babies do you?????