Baptism: Why immersion ONLY is wrong

[aspen]

babies naturally know how to hold their breathe. And no babies are not required to be immersed - nor are adults.

 

[Alanforchrist]

babies naturally know how to hold their breathe. And no babies are not required to be immersed - nor are adults.

Every meaning for Baptism, Is by total immersion..So what this nonsense about no one is required to be immersed??.

 

[aspen]

Alan the Early Church sprinkled. if you claim to share your beliefs and practices with the Early Christian Church, you need to review your history.

 

[Mungo]

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.

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.

Hi Wormwood,

I accept your point about Reveccah In Gen 24:15./16.

However I do not accept your point about the cows. They are not comparible to the beast in Rev. They are just cows and I do not see they would do other than what cows would normally do - and that is not to immerse themselves.

 

[domenic]

Matthew 3:13-17. All Christian will agree, Jesus is our example, and it is he we should follow, not a religion. Jesus was baptized by John. The scripture says, "He came up from the water." This is clear he was under the water. Either Jesus did it wrong, or the church is wrong.
Who do you defend, Jesus, or the church?

 

[Atonement]

Greetings to you in the love of Jesus

I just wanted to touch on the very first point you made

Baptism: Why immersion ONLY is wrong

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

Actually there is proof of this... The proof is the Greek word itself "Baptize" means to immerse, dip or plunge.. But clearly you have a way of proving this does not apply to you and your traditions.. So in all honesty, how hard is it to understand? The very name itself Baptize tells us what we ought to do. Why would I need Scriptures to tell me what a word actually means? Would you need Scripture to understand what the word flood means? It's common sense - some just refuse to accept it because of their traditions...

But what's more important? Your heart! I don't believe God will reject those who gave their heart to Him because of a tradition that has been passed down. God looks at the heart, and if you feel that you were properly baptized and you feel in your heart that you're right with God. God won't reject you. But to teach others that Baptism is not about immersion, goes against the Word of God because that is false..

One must first learn a little Greek and learn to understand the meaning of words before they tell others they are facts.. Because here is a fact: Baptism means to immerse, dip or plunge, this is fact! You have the Internet and the knowledge at your fingertips - You can not disagree with the meaning of a word to fit some theology. You must question your theology to verify if in fact it's in the correct line with the Word of God.

God Bless

 

[Alanforchrist]

Alan the Early Church sprinkled. if you claim to share your beliefs and practices with the Early Christian Church, you need to review your history.

The early catholic church might have sprinkled, But the TRUE Church never has sprinkled, Or poured... You might know the history of the catholic church, But you don't know anything about the true Church.

 

[Mungo]

Greetings to you in the love of Jesus

I just wanted to touch on the very first point you made



Actually there is proof of this... The proof is the Greek word itself "Baptize" means to immerse, dip or plunge.. But clearly you have a way of proving this does not apply to you and your traditions.. So in all honesty, how hard is it to understand? The very name itself Baptize tells us what we ought to do. Why would I need Scriptures to tell me what a word actually means? Would you need Scripture to understand what the word flood means? It's common sense - some just refuse to accept it because of their traditions...

But what's more important? Your heart! I don't believe God will reject those who gave their heart to Him because of a tradition that has been passed down. God looks at the heart, and if you feel that you were properly baptized and you feel in your heart that you're right with God. God won't reject you. But to teach others that Baptism is not about immersion, goes against the Word of God because that is false..

One must first learn a little Greek and learn to understand the meaning of words before they tell others they are facts.. Because here is a fact: Baptism means to immerse, dip or plunge, this is fact! You have the Internet and the knowledge at your fingertips - You can not disagree with the meaning of a word to fit some theology. You must question your theology to verify if in fact it's in the correct line with the Word of God.

God Bless

As you say Baptise comes from the Greek word baptizo which means immerse or dip or plunge, though it can also have a wider meaning. However I think it is wrong to treat baptizo as simply a Greek word with various meanings. It is the name of a Jewish, and later Christian, ritual and therefore expresses the meaning of the ritual and not of all the Greek possibilities.

The origins are the ritual purification of full body washing known in Hebrew as tevilah in a mikvah (ritual bath). Mikvah means a gathering of water and so a river is a mikvah. Since rivers were not commonly available it was any suitable pool of water, but not a free standing bath in the modern sense. It had to be dug into the ground, or built into the structure of a building and should contain rainwater with a minimum of 77 gallons.

When the Jews and Evangelists wrote in Greek they avoided the Greek words for bathe and bath because of the sexual connotations. The Greek communal bathing was a place of gossip (often crude), communal nudity and homosexuality. So they used the word baptizo (and it’s derivatives) instead. The word therefore expresses this ritual purification in water.

Moreover as I have already pointed out the word is used in circumstances where is cannot mean immerse. To quote from Frances A Schaeffer (A Presbyterian):

In the New Testament use of the word, it is equally true that the word 'baptize" cannot always mean immersion. For example, in Hebrews 9:10, we read: "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." The King James Version uses "washings" instead of "baptizings", but the Greek says "baptizings." This passage refers to the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings, such as the red heifer, and the Day of Atonement. These Old Testament cleansings were never by immersion, but always by sprinkling. Notice how Hebrews 9 itself, verses 19 and 21, emphasize the fact that the Old Testament ceremonial cleansings were by sprinkling.

I Corinthians 10.1, 2 is another such passage: "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." In this case the Jews certainly were not immersed.

Mark 7:4 is also clear: "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 of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables." Again in the King James Version, the word "washings" is used, but the Greek again is "baptizing". If baptize always means immerse, it means that the Jews, each time they came from the market place, had to fill a tub with water and go under, head and all. This is impossible, for most of them had no such accommodation in their homes. Further, this passage would also say that they constantly immersed their tables. This is again obviously impossible. Many of the ancient versions add "and couches" to this passage. To say that they regularly immersed their beds, even if they did use bed rolls, is foolish.

Again as I pointed out scripture refers of being baptised in the Holy Spiiirt at Pentecost yet they were not dipped or immersed in the Holy Spiirt. The Spirit was, as scripture says, poured out.

The early catholic church might have sprinkled, But the TRUE Church never has sprinkled, Or poured... You might know the history of the catholic church, But you don't know anything about the true Church.

The Didache
[SIZE=12pt]"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."[/SIZE]

The Didache is a first century document. Some have dated it to around 70 AD which puts it when some of the apostles were still alive.

 

[Atonement]

As you say Baptise comes from the Greek word baptizo which means immerse or dip or plunge, though it can also have a wider meaning. However I think it is wrong to treat baptizo as simply a Greek word with various meanings. It is the name of a Jewish, and later Christian, ritual and therefore expresses the meaning of the ritual and not of all the Greek possibilities.

Well of course you would think that -

I gave you all three meanings of the word, there are no other meanings of the original Greek word - none, zilch, zero, nada -

But if you want here is the meanings again..

1. to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2. to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
3. to overwhelm

You can also look up Strong's #907 for another reference

Again you should be questioning your theology and not try to change the meaning of the original word to fit your theology. That's just being obtuse

 

[Mungo]

As you say Baptise comes from the Greek word baptizo which means immerse or dip or plunge, though it can also have a wider meaning. However I think it is wrong to treat baptizo as simply a Greek word with various meanings. It is the name of a Jewish, and later Christian, ritual and therefore expresses the meaning of the ritual and not of all the Greek possibilities.

Well of course you would think that -

I gave you all three meanings of the word, there are no other meanings of the original Greek word - none, zilch, zero, nada -

But if you want here is the meanings again..

1. to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2. to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
3. to overwhelm

You can also look up Strong's #907 for another reference

Again you should be questioning your theology and not try to change the meaning of the original word to fit your theology. That's just being obtuse

Why are you ignoring all the points I made about the use of the word?

 

[Atonement]

Why are you ignoring all the points I made about the use of the word?

Because it's useless to read your points on this word. By reading all your explanations is just trying to change the fact that the meaning has changed, when in fact it hasn't.

You bring up the Holy Spirit even.. I mean really? Because I know what the word means this tells me they were immersed in the Spirit.. Or just like if I were to say - I was immersed in my school work all weekend and I couldn't get away -

Immersed

1. Dip or submerge in a liquid.
2. Involve oneself deeply in a particular interest: "immersed in her work".

Again I did not recap on all that you wrote, because really what's the point? I know and understand literature

 

[ENOCH2010]

where is it in the Bible that says to baptise people before they hear the gospel and except Jesus as their personal savior?

 

[Mungo]

Because it's useless to read your points on this word. By reading all your explanations is just trying to change the fact that the meaning has changed, when in fact it hasn't.

You bring up the Holy Spirit even.. I mean really? Because I know what the word means this tells me they were immersed in the Spirit.. Or just like if I were to say - I was immersed in my school work all weekend and I couldn't get away -

Immersed

1. Dip or submerge in a liquid.
2. Involve oneself deeply in a particular interest: "immersed in her work".

Again I did not recap on all that you wrote, because really what's the point? I know and understand literature

Three points on the meaning

1. It always had a wider meaning than you are allowing which my examples show. You are just in denial of that.

2. It's the name of a Jewish and Christians ritual and therefore has the meaning ascribed to it by Jews and Christians. Assuming the a pagan word continues to have the only pagan meanings when they are used in a religious context is simply wrong.

3. Your example of "immersed in work" (for immersed) shows that it has a wider meaning than the etymology would suggest.
early 15c. (implied in immersed), from Latin immersus, past participle of immergere "to plunge in, dip into" (see immersion). Related: Immersed; immersing; immersive. (Online etymology dictionary).

 

[Atonement]

Three points on the meaning

1. It always had a wider meaning than you are allowing which my examples show. You are just in denial of that.

2. It's the name of a Jewish and Christians ritual and therefore has the meaning ascribed to it by Jews and Christians. Assuming the a pagan word continues to have the only pagan meanings when they are used in a religious context is simply wrong.

3. Your example of "immersed in work" (for immersed) shows that it has a wider meaning than the etymology would suggest.
early 15c. (implied in immersed), from Latin immersus, past participle of immergere "to plunge in, dip into" (see immersion). Related: Immersed; immersing; immersive. (Online etymology dictionary).

Not a single one of these attributes to the meaning of the word, can, nor will ever suffice to sprinkling of water as a baptism - NEVER!
It does not hold a candle to the meaning at all, in any shape or form.

I don't have to question my theology because I know where it stands, if you decide not to question yours, that's fine. But you can't come tell us that it's not Scriptural because then you are BOLD face lying..

 

[Alanforchrist]

Three points on the meaning

1. It always had a wider meaning than you are allowing which my examples show. You are just in denial of that.

2. It's the name of a Jewish and Christians ritual and therefore has the meaning ascribed to it by Jews and Christians. Assuming the a pagan word continues to have the only pagan meanings when they are used in a religious context is simply wrong.

3. Your example of "immersed in work" (for immersed) shows that it has a wider meaning than the etymology would suggest.
early 15c. (implied in immersed), from Latin immersus, past participle of immergere "to plunge in, dip into" (see immersion). Related: Immersed; immersing; immersive. (Online etymology dictionary).

Immersion doesn't have a wider meaning, It mean, "Immersion, Submersion".
Every Greek meaning for baptism is, by total immersion, You'll just have to face the fact that your not baptised.

 

[Mungo]

Not a single one of these attributes to the meaning of the word, can, nor will ever suffice to sprinkling of water as a baptism - NEVER!
It does not hold a candle to the meaning at all, in any shape or form.

I don't have to question my theology because I know where it stands, if you decide not to question yours, that's fine. But you can't come tell us that it's not Scriptural because then you are BOLD face lying..

It's not scriptural. You are not relying on scripture but on your personal interpretation of the meaning of the Greek word.

Immersion doesn't have a wider meaning, It mean, "Immersion, Submersion".
Every Greek meaning for baptism is, by total immersion, You'll just have to face the fact that your not baptised.

Yoiu are ignoring the examples I gave where baptise does not mean immersion.

 

[HammerStone]

The Didache likely covered for water being a precious commodity at the time versus the ease of access that many of us are now blessed with. I have always read it as suggestion immersion is the main option, but that sprinkling is also acceptable when resources limit. Perchance its the Baptist in me, but I think it is the heart and obedience that the action is performed with that matters.

I am a credobaptist, but I do not harbor much animosity towards paedobaptists.

While one can make a case that credbaptism is not in Scripture explicity, let's just also be honest and say neither is paedobaptism, which has a further tenuous link in that you cannot point to one credible case, without assumption, of an infant being baptized. A number of your points are simply assumptions, which is why this debate has not been settled because neither side can claim the high ground with absolute certainty.

 

[Wormwood]

Alan the Early Church sprinkled. if you claim to share your beliefs and practices with the Early Christian Church, you need to review your history.

Actually, the early church immersed. If you want to go possibly to the second century and more prominently to the third and fourth century that's when sprinkling was introduced. So if you mean early church as in hundreds of years later, then I guess early is a relative term. The early church built baptistries for immersion. Its an archeological fact.

The Didache is a second century document. Even it makes pouring a last resort in extenuating circumstances.

 

[Mungo]

Actually, the early church immersed. If you want to go possibly to the second century and more prominently to the third and fourth century that's when sprinkling was introduced. So if you mean early church as in hundreds of years later, then I guess early is a relative term. The early church built baptistries for immersion. Its an archeological fact.

The Didache is a second century document. Even it makes pouring a last resort in extenuating circumstances.

Actually the early church used Jewish mikvahs. That's how Peter & the apostles baptised 3,000 people at Pentecost. Excavations in the Temple Mount area show there were 48 mikvahs there.

The Didache is 1st century.

 

[Wormwood]

Mungo,

Acts 2 does not say where the people were baptized. Could have been a mikvah (which does not discount my point that they were immersed), could have been something like the pool of Siloam, perhaps they took them out to a body of water outside the city. The text is not specific. Do you have some additional verses in Acts that give specifics? You make a lot of absolute claims of areas where there is little or no evidence. In any event, mikvah's only support the cause for immersion, so why are you interjecting here?

A mikveh must, according to the classical regulations, contain enough water to cover the entire body of an average-sized person; based on a mikveh with the dimensions of 3 cubits long, 1 cubit wide, and 1 cubit deep, the necessary volume of water was estimated as being 40 seah of water...

The classical requirement for full immersion was traditionally interpreted as requiring water to literally touch every part of the body, and for this reason all clothing, jewellery, and even bandages must be removed; in a contemporary mikveh used by women, there is usually an experienced attendant, commonly called the mikveh lady, to watch the immersion and ensure that the woman has been entirely covered in water. -Wikipedia

If the Didache is a somewhat problematic work and its dating is anything but certain. Some claim it to be 1st century, but in my estimation more seem to view it as either early 2nd century or even later than that.

The Didache is a problematical work, consisting of teaching (which appears in other works) on the ways of life and of death, a brief church order, dealing with baptism, fasting, prayer, eucharist, ministers and prophets, and closing with an apocalypse. It has many peculiar features, according exactly neither with church order in the NT nor with what we know of the 2nd-century church. It has been argued that it is a genuine early work (e.g. J. P. Audet, La Didachi, 1958, dates it ad 60), that it is a late-2nd-century reconstruction, or that it represents a church out of the main stream. It seems to be Syrian. -NBD