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.
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 NTand 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 at all 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 entirely 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.
In the Didache, a very respected (almost got into the NT) and popular book (STILL used in some seminaries) was likely written when many of the Apostles were still alive and by one who wrote in koine Greek in the First Century - one who knew the meaning of the word at that time. And this books specifically states it's okay to POUR water..... and it appears this is already a well established practice. In fact, the "issue" in the book is more that it be "living water" .... and there is NOTHING in it about "thou mayest ONLY and EXCLUSIVELY baptize by wholly and entirely immersing said person under and in water or it's not baptism and not valid." Nope. He says one may "POUR." Why is the didache and all who read it in the First Century - who knew and spoke and wrote koine Greek, why are all of them entirely ignorant as to the meaning of the word and what is permissible.... in fact EVERYONE until a certain Anabaptist came along in the 16th Century who didn't speak koine Greek or live in the early years of Christiantiy.... why did NONE of them know what the word they used means? No one did until a single man in the 16th Century who spoke and wrote in German?
Friend, there are no First Century Koine Greek dictionaries, NONE written by those who spoke, wrote and used the language in the Early Church. But we can look at how it is used in the NTand we can see how early Christians (perhaps as early as 70 AD and certainly by 110 AD) used and understood it. And they specifically, verbatim, in writing, declare that this includes pouring and sprinkling. In fact, it seems NOT ONE EARLY CHRISTIAN who spoke or knew koine Greek agreed with the Anabaptist on this..... no one did until that German speaking Anabaptist in the 16th Century. Why? Perhaps because the word does not mean (exclusively anyway) what you insist it means, what your "crusade" is. Those who knew and spoke and wrote koine Greek specifically declare it's okay to pour and sprinkle. So it can't mean what you say it means. This is shown by Scripture and by very early koine-Greek speaking Christians.
Is immersion PERMISSIBLE? Yes, and I know of NONE in the entire history of Christianity who has argued otherwise.
Is the SYMBOLISM of immersion rich? Yes (Luther thought so, too, btw).
Was this the preferable praxis in the First and Second Centuries? It seems so (although the far bigger issue was "living water")
But here's the thing...
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.
.
