Is Immersion required by Scripture when a baptism is performed?

[atpollard]

There were no dictionaries in the First Century.

... or any Bibles either. Just thousands of plays and essays and written documents that can be used to create a dictionary of the language of the era.

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

Based on Jewish Traditions and Greek Philosophies (the same that gave birth to the many early heresies as well), not on the word 'baptizo' suddenly not meaning what it means when used in other Greek writings, like the sinking of a ship or soaking cucumbers to make pickles.

I have nothing to offer someone who rejects all scholarship that contradicts your select traditions and sees everything as a conspiracy begun in the 16th century. Throughout this discussion it has been debated that there is no evidence whether Jesus was immersed or not when he came out of the river ... but there is only no evidence because people reject the meaning of the actual Greek words used. Baptizo means to plunge under, so when it said Jesus was 'baptizo' the scripture answered your question. I am not claiming that is the only way to 'baptize' in modern times, but you should at least start from what the actual word really means and not from a 3rd century Doctrine and work backwards.

 

[Albion]

I have nothing to offer someone who rejects all scholarship that contradicts your select traditions and sees everything as a conspiracy begun in the 16th century. Throughout this discussion it has been debated that there is no evidence whether Jesus was immersed or not when he came out of the river ... but there is only no evidence because people reject the meaning of the actual Greek words used. Baptizo means to plunge under, so when it said Jesus was 'baptizo' the scripture answered your question. I am not claiming that is the only way to 'baptize' in modern times, but you should at least start from what the actual word really means and not from a 3rd century Doctrine and work backwards.

Since even your own source says that baptizo can mean dip and wash as well as immerse, why do you insist upon saying 1) that it must only mean immerse and 2) that we don't care about "scholarship?" If we use your own choice of "scholarship," your theory is disproven.

 

[atpollard]

Since even your own source says that baptizo can mean dip and wash as well as immerse, why do you insist upon saying 1) that it must only mean immerse and 2) that we don't care about "scholarship?" If we use your own choice of "scholarship," your theory is disproven.

Answered in post 40.
Your assumptions about how dictionaries work are mistaken.

 

[Albion]

Answered in post 40.
Your assumptions about how dictionaries work are mistaken.

Thanks for the reference; I had indeed missed post 40. However, you are still in error for attempting to make your chosen definition the only possible one. The source you used did not say that; it gave alternate meanings, and even if it were conceded that immerse is the most common use, it doesn't settle the issue before us..

These are all correct meanings, so the question is simply this: which one applies IN THIS CASE?

Since there is no evidence in Scripture that Jesus' baptism or any of the others recorded in the NT were by immersion, and there is at the same time evidence that supports pouring or some other sort of application of water, it is wrong to insist upon immersion AS THE ONLY WAY.

As I noted before, all the churches that baptize by applying water in some way other than immersion agree that immersion is acceptable, so they are not refusing that use; but the Anabaptistic immersionists do reject all methods other than immersion.

How can you possibly defend that when you agree that dip or wash, for instance, are correct translations of baptizo?


.

 

[Andrew]

Maybe we were supposed to pilgrimage to the Jordan river to be baptised. We should all meet up there say... this Friday?

Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[Albion]

But the New Testament clearly describes Baptisms that took place elsewhere, so that's not a real issue.

 

[Lamb]

But the New Testament clearly describes Baptisms that took place elsewhere, so that's not a real issue.

Early baptismal fonts in ancient churches are not large enough for immersion so we can see how it was not a demand that immersion be done for baptism.

 

[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." 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). Obviously, this very popular book - written perhaps when some Apostles were still alive - written and read by those who knew and spoke and read koine Greek - did not agree with you that the word only and exclusively means "to physically immerse wholly in and under water." Why did some German Anabaptist in the 16th Century suddenly just "KNOW" the meaning of this word but those in the First and Second Century didn't ???????

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, all 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.




.

Based on Jewish Traditions and Greek Philosophies (the same that gave birth to the many early heresies as well), not on the word 'baptizo' suddenly not meaning what it means when used in other Greek writings, like the sinking of a ship or soaking cucumbers to make pickles.

Based on CHRISTIAN use and understanding, it is obvious that they did not understand the word as one German Anabaptist in the 16th Century suddenly did... and did not restrict baptism to immersion.



- Josiah



.

 

[atpollard]

How can you possibly defend that when you agree that dip or wash, for instance, are correct translations of baptizo?

The PRIMARY (central, core, innate ... not most common) meaning of the Greek word 'baptizo' is to plunge under or immerse. All of the other meanings, literal and figurative are derived from that primary core meaning. So for example, 'baptizo' could mean to be overwhelmed by troubles, and the image would be one of being 'completely submerged' in troubles.

Now for your specific examples ...

"dip" was actually "to dip repeatedly" with the imagery of something being repeatedly plunged beneath the water and withdrawn and plunged again, over and over. 'Baptizo' would not be used for 'dipping' your toe in the pool to see if the water is cold; there is a different Greek word for a quick dip.

"wash" was another example, however once again 'baptizo' would not have been used for one quick dip of your fingers in a bowl and drying them off. 'Baptizo' means washing in the sense of submerging a pot in a large basin of water to scrub it out, or submerging your body in a bath tub.

You are taking possible definitions of the English words and rejecting the CORE MEANING of the Greek word.

Now the Church is free to decide that many forms of "BAPTISM" (the English word) are permissible. I am only objecting to attempts to redefine the original Greek word 'baptizo' and render scripture meaningless. If the words can mean anything anyone wants them to, then they mean nothing.

 

[atpollard]

Based on CHRISTIAN use and understanding, it is obvious that they did not understand the word as one German Anabaptist in the 16th Century suddenly did... and did not restrict baptism to immersion.
- Josiah

.

An irrelevant attack on a 16th Century conspiracy theory ... what a surprise.

 

[Albion]

The PRIMARY (central, core, innate ... not most common) meaning of the Greek word 'baptizo' is to plunge under or immerse.

That is strictly irrelevant. As said before, it is how it is used IN THIS CASE that matters. Entirely. And since that is the case, the meaning can be any of those definitions.

IF we were to take your approach to the matter, we would also have to admit that "speaking in tongues" cannot refer to another language, because the primary definition of the word is a fleshy piece of tissue attached to the bottom of your mouth. The word, when used to mean a speech pattern or language, is only the FIFTH definition given in the dictionary.

 

[atpollard]

That is strictly irrelevant. As said before, it is how it is used IN THIS CASE that matters. Entirely. And since that is the case, the meaning can be any of those definitions.

IF we were to take your approach to the matter, we would also have to admit that "speaking in tongues" cannot refer to another language, because the primary definition of the word is a fleshy piece of tissue attached to the bottom of your mouth. The word, when used to mean a speech pattern or language, is only the FIFTH definition given in the dictionary.

Nice try, but false: 'glossa' has only two possible meanings ... the physical tongue OR a language.
You are still redefining the Greek word based on possible meanings of the English translation rather than its use in many Greek manuscripts.

γλῶσσα glōssa, gloce-sah'; of uncertain affinity; the tongue; by implication, a language (specially, one naturally acquired):—tongue.

γλῶσσα, γλωσης, ἡ (from Homer down), the tongue;
1. the tongue, a member of the body, the organ of speech: Mark 7:33, 35; Luke 1:64; Luke 16:24; 1 Corinthians 14:9; James 1:26; James 3:5, 6, 8; 1 Peter 3:10; 1 John 3:18; (Revelation 16:10). By a poetic and rhetorical usage, especially Hebraistic, that member of the body which is chiefly engaged in some act has ascribed to it what belongs to the man; the tongue is so used in Acts 2:26 (ἠγαλλιάσατο ἡ γλῶσσα μου); Romans 3:13; Romans 14:11; Philippians 2:11 (the tongue of every man); of the little tongue-like flames symbolizing the gift of foreign tongues, in Acts 2:3.

2. a tongue, i. e. the language used by a particular people in distinction from that of other nations: Acts 2:11; hence, in later Jewish usage (Isaiah 66:18; Daniel 3:4; Daniel 5:19 Theod.; Daniel 6:25; 7:14 Theod.; Judges 3:8) joined with φυλή, λαός, ἔθνος, it serves to designate people of various languages (cf. Winer's Grammar, 32), Revelation 5:9; Revelation 7:9; Revelation 10:11; Revelation 11:9; Revelation 13:7; Revelation 14:6; Revelation 17:15. λαλεῖν ἑτέραις γλώσσαις to speak with other than their native i. e. in foreign tongues, Acts 2:4, cf. Acts 2:6-11; γλώσσαις λαλεῖν καιναῖς to speak with new tongues which the speaker has not learned previously, Mark 16:17 (but Tr text WH text omit; Tr marginal reading brackets καιναῖς); cf. DeWette on Acts, p. 27ff (correct and supplement his references by Meyer on 1 Corinthians 12:10; cf. also B. D. under the word Tongues, Gift of). From both these expressions must be carefully distinguished the simple phrases λαλεῖν γλώσσαις, γλώσσαις λαλεῖν, λαλεῖν γλώσσῃ, γλώσσῃ λαλεῖν (and προσεύχεσθαι γλώσσῃ, 1 Corinthians 14:14), to speak with (in) a tongue (the organ of speech), to speak with tongues; this, as appears from 1 Corinthians 14:7ff, is the gift of men who, rapt in an ecstasy and no longer quite masters of their own reason and consciousness, pour forth their glowing spiritual emotions in strange utterances, rugged, dark, disconnected, quite unfitted to instruct or to influence the minds of others: Acts 10:46; Acts 19:6; 1 Corinthians 12:30; 1 Corinthians 13:1; 1 Corinthians 14:2, 4-6, 13, 18, 23, 27, 39. The origin of the expression is apparently to be found in the fact, that in Hebrew the tongue is spoken of as the leading instrument by which the praises of God are proclaimed (ἡ τῶν θείων ὕμνων μελῳδός, 4 Macc. 10:21, cf. Psalm 34:28 (Ps. 35:28); Psalms 65:17 (Ps. 66:17); Psalms 70:24 (Ps. 71:24); Psalm 125:2 (Ps. 126:2); Acts 2:26; Philippians 2:11; λαλεῖν ἐν γλώσσῃ, Psalm 38:4 (Ps. 39:4), and that according to the more rigorous conception of inspiration nothing human in an inspired man was thought to be active except the tongue, put in motion by the Holy Spirit (κατάχρηται ἕτερος αὐτοῦ τοῖς φωνητηριοις ὀργάνοις, στόματι καί γλωττη πρός μηνυσιν ὧν ἄν θέλῃ, Philo, rer. div. haer. § 53 (i. 510, Mang. edition)); hence, the contrast διατουνως (critical editions τῷ νοι) λαλεῖν, 1 Corinthians 14:19 cf. 1 Corinthians 14:9. The plural in the phrase γλώσσαις λαλεῖν, used even of a single person (1 Corinthians 14:5f), refers to the various motions of the tongue. By metonymy, of the cause for the effect, γλῶσσαι tongues are equivalent to λόγοι ἐν γλώσσῃ (1 Corinthians 14:19) words spoken in a tongue (Zungenvorträge): 1 Corinthians 13:8; 1 Corinthians 14:22; γένη γλωσσῶν, 1 Corinthians 12:10, 28, of which two kinds are mentioned viz. προσευχή and ψαλμός, 1 Corinthians 14:15; γλῶσσαν ἔχω, something to utter with a tongue, 1 Corinthians 14:26. (On 'Speaking with Tongues' see, in addition to the discussions above referred to, Wendt in the 5th edition of Meyer on Acts (Acts 2:4); Heinrici, Korinthierbriefe, i., 372ff; Schaff, Hist. of the Chr. Church, i. 234-245 (1882); Farrar, St. Paul, i. 95ff.)

 

[atpollard]

Let's apply your technique to other words.

They crucified Jesus.

Crucify:
1. put (someone) to death by nailing or binding them to a cross, especially as an ancient punishment.
2. criticize (someone) severely and unrelentingly.

So Jesus may not have died from being nailed to a cross at all. By selecting an alternative ENGLISH definition, we can say that they very well may have led Jesus to Golgotha where he was severely and relentlessly criticized.

Now the Greek word is stauroo which means ...

σταυρόω stauróō, stow-ro'-o; from G4716; to impale on the cross; figuratively, to extinguish (subdue) passion or selfishness:—crucify.

... but we aren't concerned with the meaning of Greek words in Greek manuscripts. It says stauroo can mean 'crucify' and the English Dictionary says 'crucify' can mean "to criticize (someone) severely and unrelentingly", so that must be a valid meaning of the biblical text.

That is EXACTLY what you are doing with 'baptizo' and 'dip'/'wash'.
[Only now you claim definitions are 'irrelevant'. I disagree.]

 

[Albion]

That is EXACTLY what you are doing with 'baptizo' and 'dip'/'wash'.

No, it's not. But having explained it to you multiple times, I don't think one more round will help.

However, I will point out that your analogies don't work anyway, since the testimony, the evidence from Scripture rules out the alternate meaning.

I told you that it matters what the meaning is IN THIS CASE--meaning in the case of baptisms performed in the New Testament or references to same. You cannot argue by use of your analogy that the Romans might only have criticized Jesus, since we have a wealth of information from the Bible that conclusively rules out that alternate meaning. So also is it with immersion.

 

[atpollard]

No, it's not. But having explained it to you multiple times, I don't think one more round will help.

However, I will point out that your analogies don't work anyway, since the testimony, the evidence from Scripture rules out the alternate meaning.

I told you that it matters what the meaning is IN THIS CASE--meaning in the case of baptisms performed in the New Testament or references to same. You cannot argue by use of your analogy that the Romans might only have criticized Jesus, since we have a wealth of information from the Bible that conclusively rules out that alternate meaning. So also is it with immersion.

Where could 'baptizo' in scripture NOT have meant immersion?
Point out the verse, please.

 

[Lamb]

Where could 'baptizo' in scripture NOT have meant immersion?
Point out the verse, please.

Luke 11:38 When the Pharisee saw it, he was surprised that He had not first ceremonially washed before the meal.

 

[Imalive]

They went to the Jordan river, see there is water, they came out of the water and that should mean sprinkling. I rest my case. We had this thread already. Anyone who seriously thinks someone will change their mind on this?

 

[user1234]

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.

 

[Andrew]

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.

The Jordan river is symbolic as well, it literally has life giving waters as opposed to the dead sea where nothing can live (with the exception a of certain living organism but I forget what it was), so imo water is purely symbolic in baptism -simply symbolic meaning 'washing away' or 'cleansed' of dirt, sweat and b.o. but importantly 'the world/earth/old Adam' again imo.
Did John carry a spoon with him? Why would he -he had a nice symbolic life giving river nearby, and if you are indifferent just call a priest on speaker phone and have him bless you as you take a bath.
When I was asked to be baptised by the Pentecostal church I was like "what? I was already baptised as a baby" and I got lectured into a full dunk in the pool, the pastor threw a ball at a big red button that opened up my above-pool-bench and I plunged into the pool, the water was so cold that I came out freezing and yelling while chattering my teeth and they said I was 'speaking in tongues'



Sent from my LGLS755 using Tapatalk

 

[user1234]

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.