Is Immersion required by Scripture when a baptism is performed?

[atpollard]

Baptizo (Strong's 904)
Not to be confused with 911, bapto. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that inorder to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptizing the vegetable, produces a permanent change. When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g.Mark 16:16. 'He that believes and is baptised shall be saved'.Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle!
- Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989.

 

[atpollard]

Can you show that in every case here, the ONLY and MANDATED meaning is "to physically and fully immerse under?"
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, Joel 2:29, Acts 2:17, Acts 2:18
.

Can you show that in the preponderance of the cases where God says 'immerse' (baptizo), God really means to pour a trickle of water from a laver over the head?

(Joel is probably not written in Greek).

The word means what it means. The task of proving that it really means something else is for others to prove. 'Baptists' are guilty of taking God at His word above church tradition. We acknowledge that. God said immerse, so we immerse.

Where are the dictionaries where 'baptizo' really means something other than to plunge under water?

 

[Josiah]

Can you show that in every case here, the ONLY and MANDATED meaning is "to physically and fully immerse in and under?"
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, Joel 2:29, Acts 2:17, Acts 2:18


.

Can you show that in the preponderance of the cases where God says 'immerse' (baptizo), God really means to pour a trickle of water from a laver over the head?

IMO, the "burden" rests with you....

And your point appears to be that BECAUSE the koine Greek word means - and can only mean this one singular thing -"to physically and entirely immerse in and under" - then the only way we may baptize is to "physically and entirely immerse under."

Friend, I don't think you've made the case that the word has one and only one possible meaning and that that is "to physically and entirely immerse under." And I don't think you've made that case that even if it did, that would be the only appropriate way (again, I may be wrong, but I seem to remember that the word "worship" in koine Greek primarily means to bow down, to prostrate.... so is it forbidden to worship standing up or sitting down?).

'Baptists' are guilty of taking God at His word above church tradition. We acknowledge that. God said immerse, so we immerse.

1. Although again, the burden is on anabaptists to show that in the Bible, "to physically and entirely immerse under and in" IS the only possible meaning. I'd like to know how one baptizes a table.... or how one is baptized in the Holy Spirit?

2. Curious.... Baptists often use little plastic cubs of Welch's Grape Juice and little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread in Communion.... where in the Bible does it say that, or is that Baptist Church Tradition? Where does the word "Eucharist" or "Supper" or "Communion" mean plastic cups?


Oh, there were no dictionaries in the First Century.



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.

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). Obviously, they did not understand that the word in question has one and only one meaning: To physically and entirely immerse in and under" 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




.

 

[tango]

I would agree with that, but...it doesn't mean that total immersion in the river was the mode used. There isn't even any way to show that Jesus himself was baptized by total immersion at the hands of John, despite the fact that it was in the River Jordan.

I think Mark 1:9-10 does suggest total immersion - it talks of Jesus "coming up from the water". It doesn't explicitly state that he was totally submerged at any point but I'm not sure what other meaning we could draw from "coming up from the water".

 

[Albion]

I think Mark 1:9-10 does suggest total immersion - it talks of Jesus "coming up from the water". It doesn't explicitly state that he was totally submerged at any point but I'm not sure what other meaning we could draw from "coming up from the water".

It means that he left the river and walked up onto the land. The river bottom on which Christ would have stood is lower than the banks of the river, so to leave the river would have been to come up from the water.

However, your point is a piece of Scriptural evidence that people who believe in total immersion have often submitted, so it's worthwhile including it in the discussion.

 

[Andrew]

It's really all symbolism, Jesus had to do it because it was the Jewish custom to becoming a priest. However since we are not Jewish I believe that squirting a tiny water gun at someones face in the name of Jesus will do fair enough.
My church boast and say "John didnt cary a spoon with him" meh... I was spooned but I also had a full body immersion later on... perhaps when im older I might just freeze myself into the center of an iceberg.
Water is underated these days, but as for the op, I don't usually carry around the Jordan river with me

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[tango]

It means that he left the river and walked up onto the land. The river bottom on which Christ would have stood is lower than the banks of the river, so to leave the river would have been to come up from the water.

However, your point is a piece of Scriptural evidence that people who believe in total immersion have often submitted, so it's worthwhile including it in the discussion.

I'd accept that leaving the river and walking up the bank is a possible interpretation of it, although I'd personally regard it as more likely that it refers to coming out of the water in the sense of being lifted out post baptism.

It still doesn't mean that full immersion is the only Scripturally accepted approach, even assuming my interpretation is correct all it tells us is that Jesus was baptised in that manner which doesn't automatically mean that no other method is acceptable.

In many ways I see baptism is largely symbolic, a public declaration that we are dead to self if you like, complete with the nominal "watery grave" to back the metaphor.

 

[Josiah]

I think Mark 1:9-10 does suggest total immersion - it talks of Jesus "coming up from the water". It doesn't explicitly state that he was totally submerged at any point but I'm not sure what other meaning we could draw from "coming up from the water".

Correct, Mark 1:9-10 says NOTHING about anyone being immersed in anything.... It simply says Jesus "came up from" where the water was; since the elevation of the river was lower than the ground above the bank, of course He came up. Nothing there about being immersed.

However, Scripture specifically tells us which JEWISH baptism rite John was administering, the "Baptism of Repentance for the Forgiveness of Sins." That's the title of one of the Jewish rites (there were at least 3 baptism rites practiced by the Jews at the time). And that form of baptism was typically done by immersion, so it's very likely Jesus was immersed. But I find that entirely irrelevant: No where in Scripture does it say, "Thou must perform all rites and practices exactly as recorded in the Bible." If that was the case, we'd need every Baptism to happen in the Jordan River, performed by a Jewish male. Even the most steadfast uber-Baptist doesn't insist that all baptisms must be done as was Jesus' - not one I know of requires all to be in the Jordan River performed by a Jewish male. And of course, they'd all celebrate Communion in an upper room in Jerusalem, after a full Sadar Meal, reclined on their sides, with a chalice of wine and large, flat matza - and only males would participate.


See post 23. It is obvious that the premise here (that the koine Greek verb has ONE and ONLY ONE meaning - to physically and entirely immerse under and in something - is in error (as the Bible and as the Didache and as all Christian history prior to the 16th Century shows). And that NO ONE (until a German Anabaptist in the 16th Century) believed that the title of the rite governs the mode of the practice; if that had been the case, Christians in 70 AD would STRESS it can ONLY be done by immersion - and yet it was specifically stated it may be done by pouring. Not until the 16th Century, among a few that knew and spoke German and not koine Greek, did that idea arose.



- Josiah

 

[Josiah]

Your point appears to be that BECAUSE the koine Greek word means - and can only mean this one singular thing -"to be physically and entirely, wholly immerse in and under something" - then the only way we may baptize is to "physically and entirely immerse under water." I find this baseless.

Friend, I don't think you've made the case that the word has one and only one possible meaning and that that is "to physically and entirely immerse under." And I don't think you've made that case that even if it did, that would be the only appropriate way (again, I may be wrong, but I seem to remember that the word "worship" in koine Greek primarily means to bow down, to prostrate.... so is it forbidden to worship standing up or sitting down?).


Oh, there were no dictionaries in the First Century. But we can see how the word was used and understood in the First Century by those who knew and used koine Greek. 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.

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). Obviously, they did not understand that the word in question has one and only one meaning: To physically and entirely immerse in and under" 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




.

Is immersion PERMISSIBLE? I think so... and I know of NONE in the entire history of Christianity who has argued otherwise.

Is the SYMBOLISM of immersion rich? I think so (Luther did too, btw).

Was this the preferable praxis in the First and early Century centuries? It seems so.



But here's the issue:

Is it the ONLY mode permitted in Holy Scripture? Does Scripture indicate that anything other that full, entire, whole immersion under and in water makes for an invalid rite/ordinance/sacrament (as the Anabaptists dogmatically insisted and many Baptists today argue)? No.

Does the word itself exclusely and solely and only mean "To fully, physically, wholly immersed into and under water?" No - as the Bible itself shows, as the Didache and early Christians (who knew and used koine Greek) obviously prove.

Did the earliest Christians (well within the time when at least some Apostles were still alive) insist the baptism could only be by immersion? No. They stated the exact opposite.


Thus, I think a case can be made that immersion was preferred in the earliest church, but a case cannot be made that the word has one and only one meaning and that those who knew and understood koine Greek stressed that (in fact, the exact opposite is the case). One can argue that traveling to the Jordan and having a Jewish Christian perform the baptism by full immersion is rich and maybe even preferable to their pastor pouring water over their head in a church in St. Paul, Minn. but not that only one of those is mandated and only one of those is valid. I think one can make a case that celebrating Communion each Sunday, with a chalice of wine and a large flat unleavened piece of matza around the Altar of the Lord is a preferrable practice to celebrating it once a year by passing around little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice while singing "Kumbyah" but I would NOT argue dogmatically that only one of those is MANDATED in the words of Scripture and that the other, therefore, is invalid.

One might be preferred but that's a whole other enchilada than whether only one is mandated by the words of Scripture and the other is invalid.



Thank you.


- Josiah




.



- Josiah

 

[atpollard]

I presented references from 3 different dictionaries that say the actual Greek word 'baptizo' means to plunge under or fully immerse.
In rebuttal, ZERO dictionary references have been presented that the word means something else, just lots of opinions and appeals to historical traditions of later centuries.

You may baptize anyone you like (adult or child) in any manner that you like (sprinkle, pour or immerse), it is no skin off my nose, but the Greek word 'baptizo' used in the Bible means what it means. You will miss some of the intended meaning of scripture, both literal and figurative, if you start by denying its basic meaning.

So what DOES it mean that we are to be 'baptizo' (fully immersed, plunged into, overwhelmed by) the Holy Spirit?
God could have chosen 'bapto' (to quickly dip), but he didn't. I do not think God chose 'baptizo' by accident.

 

[Albion]

I presented references from 3 different dictionaries that say the actual Greek word 'baptizo' means to plunge under or fully immerse.
In rebuttal, ZERO dictionary references have been presented that the word means something else, just lots of opinions and appeals to historical traditions of later centuries.

I really don't know what you are thinking because your own post cited one such and I simply referred back to what you posted. Here it is:

1. properly, to dip repeatedly, to immerge, submerge (of vessels sunk, Polybius 1, 51, 6; 8, 8, 4; of animals, Diodorus 1, 36).
2. to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water; in the middle and the 1 aorist passive to wash oneself, bathe

That's from your own post.

All the churches that baptize infants in the historic manner--which of course is the great majority of Christian churches--know the various translations and will make the same point if asked. The word 'baptizo' has a variety of meanings. This is nothing new and certainly not something that's only my personal opinion.



.

 

[Lamb]

I think Mark 1:9-10 does suggest total immersion - it talks of Jesus "coming up from the water". It doesn't explicitly state that he was totally submerged at any point but I'm not sure what other meaning we could draw from "coming up from the water".

If you've ever gone down to a river valley, you would notice that after you're done in the water you "come up from it". That doesn't mean you were immersed in the water.

 

[Lamb]

I presented references from 3 different dictionaries that say the actual Greek word 'baptizo' means to plunge under or fully immerse.
In rebuttal, ZERO dictionary references have been presented that the word means something else, just lots of opinions and appeals to historical traditions of later centuries.

You may baptize anyone you like (adult or child) in any manner that you like (sprinkle, pour or immerse), it is no skin off my nose, but the Greek word 'baptizo' used in the Bible means what it means. You will miss some of the intended meaning of scripture, both literal and figurative, if you start by denying its basic meaning.

So what DOES it mean that we are to be 'baptizo' (fully immersed, plunged into, overwhelmed by) the Holy Spirit?
God could have chosen 'bapto' (to quickly dip), but he didn't. I do not think God chose 'baptizo' by accident.

Scriptures states in the NT that pieces of furniture were baptized...but they were big pieces and it wouldn't be practical to immerse them. So they were "washed" which is another definition of the word. (It's in Mark 7:1-4 about the tables and there is another verse that states couch but I can't find it in my notes right now).

 

[atpollard]

I really don't know what you are thinking because your own post cited one such and I simply referred back to what you posted. Here it is:



That's from your own post.

All the churches that baptize infants in the historic manner--which of course is the great majority of Christian churches--know the various translations and will make the same point if asked. The word 'baptizo' has a variety of meanings. This is nothing new and certainly not something that's only my personal opinion.
.

1. properly, to dip repeatedly, to immerge, submerge (of vessels sunk, Polybius 1, 51, 6; 8, 8, 4; of animals, Diodorus 1, 36).
Definition 1 includes ALL of these descriptions at the same time. You are using different meanings available in English for each term and picking and choosing from among them. That is not how a dictionary works. So to "dip repeatedly" as used in definition 1 would include "immerge" or "submerge". This use of "DIP" includes complete submersion.

2. to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water; in the middle and the 1 aorist passive to wash oneself, bathe
Again, all of the phrases in the second definition go together. "dipping or submerging" means that it is completely submerged repeatedly (cleanse by dipping) or it is completely submerged and held under water (cleanse by submerging). This can also be described as "to wash" (like washing a dish in a tub of soapy water). This could also be used to describe washing yourself, like when you take a bath (body submerged in a tub of water; not taking a shower). All of the descriptions under a possible definition go together to reinforce each other.

If 'baptizo' could also mean to rinse under a stream of water (a valid definition of the English word 'wash') then that would have been listed as a separate definition with its own number.

 

[psalms 91]

One thing no one is mentioning is that it was required to have moving water (Hy-am My-am) dont hold me to the spelling

 

[atpollard]

Scriptures states in the NT that pieces of furniture were baptized...but they were big pieces and it wouldn't be practical to immerse them. So they were "washed" which is another definition of the word. (It's in Mark 7:1-4 about the tables and there is another verse that states couch but I can't find it in my notes right now).

Mark 7:1-4 NASB
1 The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come from Jerusalem, 2 and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed. 3 (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash [nipto] their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; 4 and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves [baptizo]; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing [baptizmos] of cups and pitchers and copper pots.)

(G909) βαπτισμός baptismós, bap-tis-mos'; from G907; ablution (ceremonial or Christian):—baptism, washing.

Thayer:
βαπτισμός, βαπτισμου, ὁ (βαπτίζω), a washing, purification effected by means of water: Mark 7:4, 8 (R G L Tr in brackets) (ξεστῶν καί ποτηρίων); of the washings prescribed by the Mosaic law, Hebrews 9:10. βαπτισμῶν διδαχῆς equivalent to διδαχῆς περί βαπτισμῶν, Hebrews 6:2 (where L text, WH text, βαπτισμῶν διδαχῆς), which seems to mean an exposition of the difference between the washings prescribed by the Mosaic law and Christian baptism. (Among secular writings Josephus alone, Antiquities 18, 5, 2, uses the word, and of John's baptism; (respecting its interchange with βάπτισμα cf. examples in Sophocles Lexicon, under the word 2 and Lightfoot on Colossians 2:12, where L marginal reading Tr read βαπτισμός; cf. Trench, § xcix.).)


Based on my dish-washing experience, "cups and pitchers and copper pots" are not too large to immerse before cooking and eating with them.

 

[atpollard]

One thing no one is mentioning is that it was required to have moving water (Hy-am My-am) dont hold me to the spelling

Not that I disagree, but do you have a scripture reference?

 

[Albion]

1. properly, to dip repeatedly, to immerge, submerge (of vessels sunk, Polybius 1, 51, 6; 8, 8, 4; of animals, Diodorus 1, 36).
Definition 1 includes ALL of these descriptions at the same time.

Correct. It can mean any or all of them. So applying water but not doing total immersion fulfils the requirements of a valid baptism. However, traditional Christians have no objection to immersion.

On the other hand, the Anabaptist tradition--called the "Radical Reformation" by historians--which arose a few centuries ago in opposition to Catholicism AND Lutheranism AND Anglicanism AND Calvinism was exclusionary. It said, "No, it's our way or nothing." It also said "By our minister or nothing" and "Only at the age we have decided upon."

Unfortunately, their argument is wrong. Baptizo does not mean to immerse and only to immerse. It means to immerse, to dip, to wash, and etc. It describes the traditional mode of Christian baptism. It just doesn't support the Anabaptist POV which says that only one of the meanings is going to be accepted by them (and for no particular reason since Scripture doesn't specify immersion). Like so many other doctrinal disputes of the past, the problem originates with someone thinking that there is one and only one possible meaning for some word or passage in Scripture--and being wrong about that.

 

[Josiah]

Your point appears to be that BECAUSE the koine Greek word means - and can only mean this one singular thing -"to be physically and entirely, wholly immerse in and under something" - then the only way we may baptize is to "physically and entirely immerse under water." I find this baseless. Friend, I don't think you've made the case that the word has one and only one possible meaning and that that is "to physically and entirely immerse under." And I don't think you've made that case that even if it did, that would be the only appropriate way (again, I may be wrong, but I seem to remember that the word "worship" in koine Greek primarily means to bow down, to prostrate.... so is it forbidden to worship standing up or sitting down?).


Oh, there were no dictionaries in the First Century. But we can see how the word was used and understood in the First Century by those who knew and used koine Greek. 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.


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). Obviously, they did not understand that the word in question has one and only one meaning: To physically and entirely immerse in and under" 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 (70-110 AD) 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.




Is immersion PERMISSIBLE? I think so... and I know of NONE in the entire history of Christianity who has argued otherwise.

Is the SYMBOLISM of immersion rich? I think so (Luther did too, btw).

Was this the preferable praxis in the First and early Century centuries? It seems so.


But here's the issue:

Is it the ONLY mode permitted in Holy Scripture? Does Scripture indicate that anything other that full, entire, whole immersion under and in water makes for an invalid rite/ordinance/sacrament (as the Anabaptists dogmatically insisted and many Baptists today argue)? No.

Does the word itself exclusely and solely and only mean "To fully, physically, wholly immersed into and under water?" No - as the Bible itself shows, as the Didache and early Christians (who knew and used koine Greek) obviously prove.

Did the earliest Christians (well within the time when at least some Apostles were still alive) insist the baptism could only be by immersion? No. They stated the exact opposite.


Thus, I think a case can be made that immersion was preferred in the earliest church, but a case cannot be made that the word has one and only one meaning and that those who knew and understood koine Greek stressed that (in fact, the exact opposite is the case). One can argue that traveling to the Jordan and having a Jewish Christian perform the baptism by full immersion is rich and maybe even preferable to their pastor pouring water over their head in a church in St. Paul, Minn. but not that only one of those is mandated and only one of those is valid. I think one can make a case that celebrating Communion each Sunday, with a chalice of wine and a large flat unleavened piece of matza around the Altar of the Lord is a preferrable practice to celebrating it once a year by passing around little cut up pieces of Weber's White Bread and little plastic cups of Welch's Grape Juice while singing "Kumbyah" but I would NOT argue dogmatically that only one of those is MANDATED in the words of Scripture and that the other, therefore, is invalid.

One might be preferred but that's a whole other enchilada than whether only one is mandated by the words of Scripture and the other is invalid.



Thank you.


.

I presented references from 3 different dictionaries that say the actual Greek word 'baptizo' means to plunge under or fully immerse.

There were no dictionaries in the First Century.

We CAN see how the Bible itself uses words and how those in the First Century (and soon thereafter) understood the word. I've done that. Others have too. You've ignored it. I think those in the First Century who knew and used koine Greek probably have a better idea of what the word meant than some 21st century "dictionaries" written by those who whose own languages is anything BUT koine Greek and perhaps have an "ax" to grind. Again.... IF the word meant and could only mean what some German insisted in the 16th Century - then that's a SHOCK to those in the Early Church who spoke koine Greek.... the Didache says it's okay to pour.... those in the early church also indicated that. Why would some individual in the 16th Century (who maybe didn't even know koine Greek) and 3 guys in the 21st Century whose languages are not Greek (ancient, koine, modern or otherwise) know more than those in the First Century who spoke it?



- Josiah

 

[atpollard]

Correct. It can mean any or all of them. So applying water but not doing total immersion fulfils the requirements of a valid baptism. However, traditional Christians have no objection to immersion.

On the other hand, the Anabaptist tradition--called the "Radical Reformation" by historians--which arose a few centuries ago in opposition to Catholicism AND Lutheranism AND Anglicanism AND Calvinism was exclusionary. It said, "No, it's our way or nothing." It also said "By our minister or nothing" and "Only at the age we have decided upon."

Unfortunately, their argument is wrong. Baptizo does not mean to immerse and only to immerse. It means to immerse, to dip, to wash, and etc. It describes the traditional mode of Christian baptism. It just doesn't support the Anabaptist POV which says that only one of the meanings is going to be accepted by them (and for no particular reason since Scripture doesn't specify immersion). Like so many other doctrinal disputes of the past, the problem originates with someone thinking that there is one and only one possible meaning for some word or passage in Scripture--and being wrong about that.

That is not how dictionaries are structured. If that were the case, each possible definition would have been given a unique number, like this ...

baptizo:
1. to dip repeatedly
2. to immerge
3. to submerge
4. to cleanse by dipping or submerging,
5. to wash,
6. to make clean with water
7. to wash oneself
8. to bathe

That is not how it was presented in the dictionaries, but I give up trying to explain how dictionaries work. Redefine 'baptizo' any way you want.