Is Immersion required by Scripture when a baptism is performed?

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
39
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Lol DHoffman ... So THAT's how they do it!

'Hey, What's all the chatter?'

Oh, that's just the cold Pentecostals speaking in hot Baptist tongues. (Or wait...is it the other way around?! Lol) :spinningsmilie: :disgonbegood: Lol, God bless you, D.
What did the car salesmen shout out at the Pentecostal church?

"Shouldaboughtahonda!!"

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk
 

user1234

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 2, 2017
Messages
1,654
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Other Church
Marital Status
Separated
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
What did the car salesmen shout out at the Pentecostal church?

"Shouldaboughtahonda!!"

Economycarshow!
Shouldaboughtahonda!
Shinyoldcommode!
:car:
 

atpollard

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2017
Messages
2,573
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Baptist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Luke 11:38 When the Pharisee saw it, he was surprised that He had not first ceremonially washed before the meal.

John 2:6 NASB Now there were six stone waterpots set there for the Jewish custom of purification, containing twenty or thirty gallons each.

I requested a verse where 'baptizo' could not possibly mean 'immersion'. What would lead you to believe that it was impossible to ceremonially 'wash your hands by immersion' (baptizo) given multiple 20-30 gallon water jars?
 

psalms 91

Well-known member
Moderator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
15,211
Age
75
Location
Pa
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
I bel;ieve that the Mikvah required immersion as well
 

Imalive

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 3, 2017
Messages
2,315
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
atpollard seems to have made the most sense explaining the meaning of the word .... It really seems to be saying immersion.

Now add to that some reasonable common sense.
Where was John the Baptist?
He was in the river.

If sprinkling, dripping, or spritzing (ya know, with a plastic spray bottle, lol) was what John was doing, why was he all the way out there in the river, and having others come to the river to him?

He could've just sat on the corner with a bucket of water, splashing the passersby. (Or he coulda used one of them pope flinger-things)

But no ..... Combined w the most reasonable definition of the word, it makes the most sense that they went down to the river, to get IN the river, to be IMMERSED in the water.

But does it really matter that much that believers on this site (and we're SUPPOSED to be FAMILY) keep arguing the same points about it?

Jesus saved us by His shed blood on the cross, not our getting wet in a water ceremony. I don't think he's gonna be standing there blocking our entrance in, saying, 'No, sorry...I'm glad you believed in me, but you didn't get wet the right way...depart from me you rotten sinner you!'

Peace and God bless.

or: you got baptized in a swimming pool, but it had to be living water. Ah. A pity. I looked that up. They always used rivers and such. It had to be living water. I did it wrong!!!!!! I need to get rebaptized!
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,735
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
.


1. Again, I don't think a case can be made that the koine Greek word means only "to physically and wholly immerse in and under water." Just for starters, see Acts 11:15-16, 1 Corinthians 10:2, Hebrews 9:10, Mark 7:4, Mark 10:38, Mark 10:39, Luke 12: 50, Luke 11:38, Acts 2:17, Acts 2:18


2. I don't think a case can be made that the title of an act governs it. If so, communion would have to be a party, part of a supper (at supper time), and always done in common. Worship would have to be always bowing down, etc. It's silly to argue that the the title of a practice governs how the practice must be done, it's an illogical and silly argument.


3. We know from history that pouring and sprinkling were practiced very early (well established by 70 - 110 AD) - by people who actually knew and spoke koine Greek - so obviously those who spoke koine Greek did not limit baptism to immersion, those who lived at the time and who actually spoke the language did not agree with that 16th Century Anabaptist who insisted the word must mean "immerse" and that baptism thus can only be by immersion. Why did this one guy in 16th Century Germany suddenly (of out the blue) know that the word means when no one who actually spoke it and used it in the First and Second Centuries did?


4. I reject the rubric that we can only do what seems was done by examples recorded in the bible. I wouldn't be posting on the internet if I held to that.




- Josiah




.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
31,689
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Tables and couches were "baptized" in scripture as I've pointed out in this thread. Those items weren't immersed. Ancient churches had baptismal fonts that weren't large enough to immerse. And the Didache says that it was okay to "pour" water since that was moving water and that was written around 75 AD.

Immersion is neither commanded nor forbidden so why would a Christian say that it was?
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,551
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Now add to that some reasonable common sense.
Where was John the Baptist?
He was in the river.

If sprinkling, dripping, or spritzing (ya know, with a plastic spray bottle, lol) was what John was doing, why was he all the way out there in the river, and having others come to the river to him?
I am frankly amazed that people try to make this argument. Even today when churches that practice immersion do it in a river, the minister is merely standing in the river, not covered by the water from foot to scalp! So being in the river doesn't prove a thing about immersions.

And as for the candidate, this puts the minister in the best position to either immerse him or pour water upon him. In short, none of this makes a case that baptism had to be or was done by immersion. And we know from paintings in the catacombs that John was pictured by the very early church as standing, alongside a standing Christ, in the river and pouring water upon Jesus.

Why do you suppose that the first Christians might have had that scene in mind if everyone knew that to baptize must absolutely mean to immerse???

Also, there is another reason for John to stand in the river. That is where the water is! If you are going to baptize a lot of people, it is the most convenient way to do one person after another after another as he had done on many other occasions.


.
 
Last edited:

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,735
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Tables and couches were "baptized" in scripture as I've pointed out in this thread. Those items weren't immersed. Ancient churches had baptismal fonts that weren't large enough to immerse. And the Didache says that it was okay to "pour" water since that was moving water and that was written around 75 AD.


Ahha



.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,551
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Immersion is neither commanded nor forbidden so why would a Christian say that it was?
Past association with some congregation or church that drummed that particular theory into the heads of the members?
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
Immersion is neither commanded nor forbidden so why would a Christian say that it was?
Infant baptism is neither commanded nor forbidden so why would a Christian say it is important?
atpollard has provided a data driven reasoning based upon the word choice used in Scripture. This is solid data, yet ultimately people gravitate to their denominational stance regardless of its biblical support.
 

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
31,689
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Infant baptism is neither commanded nor forbidden so why would a Christian say it is important?
atpollard has provided a data driven reasoning based upon the word choice used in Scripture. This is solid data, yet ultimately people gravitate to their denominational stance regardless of its biblical support.

Infants are included in "all nations". Jesus didn't say to exclude them. But now you've gone off on a tangent. I gave proof that tables and chairs were baptized in the bible. To immerse them in the house would have been ridiculous.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
Infants are included in "all nations". Jesus didn't say to exclude them. But now you've gone off on a tangent. I gave proof that tables and chairs were baptized in the bible. To immerse them in the house would have been ridiculous.
Is this thread about tables and chairs being baptized or humans being baptized?
Are we as Christians merely dipped into Christ or are we immersed in Christ? The symbolism and word usage is to be immersed. This is a data driven fact.
If the authors wanted to say that sprinkling was the symbol then the authors would have described baptism in the same fashion as the writer in Hebrews when he speaks of Jesus as the high priest who enters the heavenly temple and sprinkles his blood on objects to make them holy. But, no author in scripture uses that imagery in regard to baptism. Why do you suppose they chose the exact words they did? Was it accidental?
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,551
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Infant baptism is neither commanded nor forbidden so why would a Christian say it is important?
atpollard has provided a data driven reasoning based upon the word choice used in Scripture. This is solid data, yet ultimately people gravitate to their denominational stance regardless of its biblical support.

I am sorry, but that is nonsense. Especially after all that has been carefully explained here.

The arguments/reasons that stand against OBLIGATORY immersion (that's still the topic of this thread, not infant baptism) have been many and solid.

The "We only want to consider one possible meaning for the word baptizo" argument has been debunked on at least a half dozen bases. And if one's denominational orientation is all that drives anyone's decision about this, most denominations are not immersion-only denominations, so your complaint should rightly be directed at the Baptistic exceptions to the historic consensus of Christians, not to the majority of denominations that count most of the world's Christians and didn't just come up with a new slant on this subject a few centuries ago.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
I am sorry, but that is nonsense. Especially after all that has been carefully explained here.

The arguments/reasons that stand against OBLIGATORY immersion (that's still the topic of this thread, not infant baptism) have been many and solid.

The "We only want to consider one possible meaning for the word baptizo" argument has been debunked on at least a half dozen bases. And if one's denominational orientation is all that drives anyone's decision about this, most denominations are not immersion-only denominations, so your complaint should rightly be directed at the Baptistic exceptions to the historic consensus of Christians, not to the majority of denominations that count most of the world's Christians and didn't just come up with a new slant on this subject a few centuries ago.
Of course they're not immersion only. They do not view the Bible with a literal lense. This gives them license to make things up and claim..."tradition" as there scapegoat.
One can certainly follow that path, but one cannot claim biblical evidence with that claim.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,551
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Of course they're not immersion only. They do not view the Bible with a literal lense. This gives them license to make things up and claim..."tradition" as there scapegoat.
It is not a very convincing argument to insist that 3/4 of Christianity is wrong about this because it supposedly takes the Bible literally when, in fact, it is the Baptistic minority that specializes in superliteral interpretations, not the traditionalist majority. That is also how the minority comes up with an artificially narrow interpretation of the word baptizo.
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
53
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
It is not a very convincing argument to insist that 3/4 of Christianity is wrong about this because it supposedly takes the Bible literally when, in fact, it is the Baptistic minority that specializes in superliteral interpretations, not the traditionalist majority. That is also how the minority comes up with an artificially narrow interpretation of the word baptizo.
It is unconvincing to state "tradition" and then drop the mic.
There is historical evidence where the majority was utterly wrong.
 

Albion

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Sep 1, 2017
Messages
7,551
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Anglican
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
It is unconvincing to state "tradition" and then drop the mic.
.
Yeh. I would agree. No one here did that, however, so don't worry too much about it.
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,735
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Is this thread about tables and chairs being baptized or humans being baptized?


IF - as the whole premise of this thread insists - the word "baptize" MUST mean ONLY to fully and physically immerse in and under water - then it is relevant to ask how couches and tables were baptized, as Scripture specifically and verbatim states.

And I'd add why no one until a Anabaptist in the 16th Century knew that (certainly those in 75 AD as we see in the Didache knew no such thing). Since there were no dictionaries in the First Century, we were asked to show how Scripture uses the word and how folks that knew and spoke koine Greek at the time understood it - and so Scriptures were presented where it obviously doesn't only mean "to fully and physically immerse in and under water" and quoted from the Didache and others to show that those who knew and spoke koine Greek obviously didn't understand it to mean "fully and physically to immerse in and under water" (among other things because they insisted it was okay to pour the water onto the receiver).




Infant baptism is neither commanded nor forbidden


Wrong thread.....

But of course, if you are right then why would the German Anabaptists (and their followers still to this day) insist on forbidding it since as you note, Scripture does not? Kind of like forbidding people to use the internet because Scripture does not. Silly, wouldn't you agree? But again, this thread isn't about what Scriptures forbid infants from being baptized (which you agree it doesn't), it's about whether the word "baptize" in koine Greek must exclusive mean "to fully and physically immerse in and under water" and thus baptism may ONLY be administered in that way, a position invented by a German Anabaptist in the 16th Century (a man who didn't speak koine Greek and may not have even known it from school)



Josiah said:


1. Again, I don't think a case can be made that the koine Greek word means only "to physically and wholly immerse in and under water." Just for starters, see Acts 11:15-16, 1 Corinthians 10:2, Hebrews 9:10, Mark 7:4, Mark 10:38, Mark 10:39, Luke 12: 50, Luke 11:38, Acts 2:17, Acts 2:18


2. I don't think a case can be made that the title of an act governs it. If so, communion would have to be a party, part of a supper (at supper time), and always done in common. Worship would have to be always bowing down, etc. It's silly to argue that the the title of a practice governs how the practice must be done, it's an illogical and silly argument.


3. We know from history that pouring and sprinkling were practiced very early (well established by 70 - 110 AD) - by people who actually knew and spoke koine Greek - so obviously those who spoke koine Greek did not limit baptism to immersion, those who lived at the time and who actually spoke the language did not agree with that 16th Century Anabaptist who insisted the word must mean "immerse" and that baptism thus can only be by immersion. Why did this one guy in 16th Century Germany suddenly (of out the blue) know that the word means when no one who actually spoke it and used it in the First and Second Centuries did?


4. I reject the rubric that we can only do what seems was done by examples recorded in the bible. I wouldn't be posting on the internet if I held to that.



.



Josiah said:
The Didache was written A.D. 70 - 110, and, though not inspired, is a strong witness to the sacramental practice of Christians in the apostolic age. Now friend, the writer and all the readers of that, living somewhere between 70 - 110 AD, all knew Koine Greek... and it's written in Koine Greek... so they likely knew the meaning of words in koine Greek (the language of the NT and the language of the word we are discussing. This extremely popular book (that almost got into the NT Canon) was written perhaps when many of the Apostles were still alive and when there were still eyewitnesses to Christ.... and when people knew and used koine Greek.

In its seventh chapter, the Didache reads, "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." These instructions were composed either while some of the apostles and disciples were still alive or during the next generation of Christians, and they represent an already established custom.

Now... obviously in the period of 70 - 110 AD, Christians did not understand the situation as was insisted beginning in the 16th Century with the Anabaptists (none of whom spoke koine Greek, few of whom knew it at all). Obviously, they did not understand that the word in question has one and only one meaning: "To physically and entirely immerse in and under water" because he specifically states that it may be by pouring (he PREFERS immersing in living water, but he ALLOWS pouring). And the Didache does NOT insist that we must do it according to the primary meaning of the word or as Jesus was Baptized. Both your points are contradicted by the Didache (written when people knew, understood and used koine Greek)

The testimony of the Didache is seconded by other early Christian writings. Pope Cornelius I wrote that as Novatian was about to die, "he received baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring" (Letter to Fabius of Antioch [A.D. 251]; cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:4311).

Cyprian advised that no one should be "disturbed because the people are poured upon or sprinkled when they receive the Lord’s grace" (Letter to a Certain Magnus 69:12 [A.D. 255]). Tertullian described baptism by saying that it is done "with so great simplicity, without pomp, without any considerable novelty of preparation, and finally, without cost, a man is baptized in water, and amid the utterance of some few words, is sprinkled." (On Baptism, 2 [A.D. 203]). Obviously, Tertullian did not consider baptism by immersion the only valid form.

It appears, those that knew and used koine Greek disagree with you. And so did those who lived in the early age of the church. Indeed, it seems all until the 16th Century Anabaptist movement began.




.




- Josiah




.
 
Last edited:

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
31,689
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Is this thread about tables and chairs being baptized or humans being baptized?
Are we as Christians merely dipped into Christ or are we immersed in Christ? The symbolism and word usage is to be immersed. This is a data driven fact.
If the authors wanted to say that sprinkling was the symbol then the authors would have described baptism in the same fashion as the writer in Hebrews when he speaks of Jesus as the high priest who enters the heavenly temple and sprinkles his blood on objects to make them holy. But, no author in scripture uses that imagery in regard to baptism. Why do you suppose they chose the exact words they did? Was it accidental?

If the original language can't be properly understood then the theology will probably state something as well that isn't understood. Tables and chairs had the same term that the baptism that Jesus instituted had. Therein lies the defense that it's not strictly mandated that a person goes under water for it to be a valid baptism.
 
Top Bottom