Baptism Question

[Josiah]

Some Christians insist that the word "baptism" = to immerse. Their whole insistence on immersion depends on that insistence - it is what the word means. It's why they rebuke any other means of applying water in Baptism because the word MANDATES immersion, it's not baptism unless the receiver is fully immersed (goes the apologetic).


I was reading First Corinthians (again) and noticed 10:2. It says, "... and all (the Hebrews who crossed the sea in the Exodus) were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea."

A couple of questions for the Anabaptist perspective....

1. What does it mean to be "immersed into Moses?" How were the 600,000 Hebrews in the Exodus immersed into Moses?

2. I can understand how they could "all" be immersed into the cloud (although I don't think Exodus says they were), but were they all immersed into the sea? I think it says the Egyptian army was, but does it say all 600,000 HEBREWS were immersed into the sea? Doesn't it say they crossed on dry land, not were drowned by the sea? Do those who permit only immersion believe that all the Hebrews were entirely immersed but all somehow survived? Does Exodus not mention this immersion into the sea but Paul knows of it anyway?


Just wondering....


Thanks!


- Josiah

 

[Cassia]

I'm not an anabaptist but I'm having a hard time picturing John the Baptist sprinkling water on the heads of those he was baptizing. Didn't it say that 'when Jesus 'came up out of the water'? That sounds like immersion. hmn

 

[user1234]

Water baptism is a symbolic and open way of our identifying that we are united with Jesus Christ. Just as He died and was buried for our sins, we are dead to our old man, our sins were taken by Christ and buried, never to be remembered, hence, the full submersion under water. We are crucified with Him.

Coming up out of the water symbolizes our identity with His resurrection.
Risen to newness of life. Because He lives, we shall live also.
It's an outward showing of the inward reality, and an opportunity to make our identity made public before God and man (though not a 'requirement' for salvation, we're saved by grace through faith) but a way to agree with the Lord when He said, If you confess me before men, I will confess you before My Father in heaven, but if you deny me before men, I will deny you before My Father in heaven.

It's a way to bring Galatians2:20, among other verses, into clear view..... :
I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live,
yet not I, but Christ lives in me...
And the life that I now live in the flesh
I live by the faith of the Son of God,
who loved me, and gave Himself for me.

So we baptize to identify with Jesus,
In submersion because of the symbolism of
death and resurrection, and because that's how Jesus did it, too.

As far as the Israelites in the river, I'm not sure what the symbolism means regarding baptism into Moses, except that they were God's ppl, identified with Moses, who was their representative before God, and he was God's representative to the ppl, similar to Jesus being the One mediator between God and man, but by grace, Jesus being the one who kept the law for us.

Also, being under the water, in the sense that the river parted and was raised up on either side of them, and they crossed over on dry ground, normally under the river.

 

[Lamb]

I'm not an anabaptist but I'm having a hard time picturing John the Baptist sprinkling water on the heads of those he was baptizing. Didn't it say that 'when Jesus 'came up out of the water'? That sounds like immersion. hmn

If you go down to a river bank you come up out of the water when you're done. It doesn't necessarily mean he was dunked at all but in order to get to most rivers and streams you have to go down to them since they're lower than the rest of the land.

 

[Josiah]

I'm not an anabaptist but I'm having a hard time picturing John the Baptist sprinkling water on the heads of those he was baptizing. Didn't it say that 'when Jesus 'came up out of the water'? That sounds like immersion. hmn

1. Different question.... As I understand it, Anabaptists do NOT base their insistence on immersion on Tradition (we must DO things as the Jews did, regardless of what the Bible says or does not say). Generally, Anabaptists REJECT Tradition in lieu of Scripture.


2. The baptism John the Baptist did was not a Christian Baptism, it was the JEWISH "Baptism of Repentance for the Forgiveness of Sin." John MAY not even have been a Christian at this point (?). We know that THIS form of Jewish Baptism (there were 3 different Baptism rites in Judaism) was by immersion, but not all were. Again, this particular JEWISH rite would not be the Tradition any would suggest we substitute for Scripture - what the Bible says and does not say.


3. But actually, the text is NOT clear that Jesus was immersed. No one would teach He was immersed (can't tell from the text), the teaching that He was comes from history, not Scripture. We know from history that this particular form of Jewish Baptism was done by immersion, thus the conclusion that Jesus here was immersed. The Bible doesn't actually say that.


4. The issue before us is this: Anabaptists base their entire argument on one point: the word "baptism" MEANS "immersion" and thus the word used for the rite MANDATES that the water be applied by immersion. Okay. I'm simply asking how they then handle this verse in 1 Corithians chapter 10 where the word "baptism" is used. Again, their dogmatic point is the word MUST mean and can ONLY mean "immersion." I'm not arguing the point, I'm just trying to get an idea of what Anabaptists do with this verse. I googled the verse but could not find a proponent of immersion baptism addressing this at all.



Thank you.



- Josiah

 

[Cassia]

Matthew 3
15“Let it be so now,” Jesus replied. “It is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness in this way.” Then John permitted Him. 16As soon as Jesus was baptized, He went up out of the water. Suddenly the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and resting on Him.

Out of means a separation from, that could be water, land or anything. I am not going to comment on what Jewish traditions are to be followed.

 

[Lamb]

Matthew 3
15“Let it be so now,” Jesus replied. “It is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness in this way.” Then John permitted Him. 16As soon as Jesus was baptized, He went up out of the water. Suddenly the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and resting on Him.

Out of means a separation from, that could be water, land or anything. I am not going to comment on what Jewish traditions are to be followed.

Have you ever been down in a river? If you're standing and you go to shore, you come up out of the water.

 

[Cassia]

Have you ever been down in a river? If you're standing and you go to shore, you come up out of the water.

In the same sense if your immersed in water you come up out of the water. I've never seen pictures denoting Christ up on the riverbank with the HS descending ..

 

[Josiah]

Matthew 3 16As soon as Jesus was baptized, He went up out of the water."

Out of means a separation from, that could be water, land or anything.

Bad translation....

The Greek is apo tou udatos. FROM the water, not OUT OF the water. And of course, if I come "from California" does not mandate I was immersed, dunked, covered entirely by California.



Again....


1. Different question.... As I understand it, Anabaptists do NOT base their insistence on immersion on Tradition (we must DO things as the Jews did, regardless of what the Bible says or does not say). Generally, Anabaptists REJECT Tradition in lieu of Scripture.


2. The baptism John the Baptist did was not a Christian Baptism, it was the JEWISH "Baptism of Repentance for the Forgiveness of Sin." John MAY not even have been a Christian at this point (?). We know that THIS form of Jewish Baptism (there were 3 different Baptism rites in Judaism) was by immersion, but not all were. Again, this particular JEWISH rite would not be the Tradition any would suggest we substitute for Scripture - what the Bible says and does not say.


3. But actually, the text is NOT clear that Jesus was immersed. No one would teach He was immersed (can't tell from the text), the teaching that He was comes from history, not Scripture. We know from history that this particular form of Jewish Baptism was done by immersion, thus the conclusion that Jesus here was immersed. The Bible doesn't actually say that.


4. The issue before us is this: Anabaptists base their entire argument on one point: the word "baptism" MEANS "immersion" and thus the word used for the rite MANDATES that the water be applied by immersion. Okay. I'm simply asking how they then handle this verse in 1 Corithians chapter 10 where the word "baptism" is used. Again, their dogmatic point is the word MUST mean and can ONLY mean "immersion." I'm not arguing the point, I'm just trying to get an idea of what Anabaptists do with this verse. I googled the verse but could not find a proponent of immersion baptism addressing this at all.



Thank you.



- Josiah




.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

Strong's (fwiw) says the sense here is that they were somehow joined to ("baptized into") Moses as their leader. Another clue might be gained from vs. 1, where "our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea..." - and that this is somehow connected to the 'joining' to Moses. It'd be hard to make a connection between that and an argument for "immersion" as the mode for baptism

 

[Josiah]

It'd be hard to make a connection between that and an argument for "immersion" as the mode for baptism

I tend to agree..... I'm not seeing how this verse proves that the word "baptize" MUST mean "immersion", to be fully under and in water, as the only and mandated meaning of the word. But I'm hoping someone will show how it does, thus support the "immersion only" mandate.

 

[Rens]

You don't get buried by throwing some sand on your head.

 

[Josiah]

You don't get buried by throwing some sand on your head.

But then the Hebrews were BAPTIZED into Moses - by the cloud and the water. Actually, none of them even touched the cloud or the water, so how were they IMMERSED, entirely enveloped by, the cloud and the water? How does this verse prove that the mandated meaning of the verb "baptize" is "immersed?" The argument is that the word literally MEANS "immersed" and THEREFORE the mandated manner of applying the water is by IMMERSION - it cannot be called "baptism" if there was no literal, full IMMERSION. How does this verse prove that to be true? That's the issue before us.


And of course, when Jesus was buried, there was no immersion ... He was wrapped in a shroud and laid in a tomb. No sand at all. Not that that has anything to do with the meaning of the word "baptize."



Thank you.


Pax Christi


- Josiah

 

[user1234]

I tend to agree..... I'm not seeing how this verse proves that the word "baptize" MUST mean "immersion", to be fully under and in water, as the only and mandated meaning of the word. But I'm hoping someone will show how it does, thus support the "immersion only" mandate.

I think 'immersion only' isn't a good way to look at it from the start. It makes water baptism sound like a legalistic act that not only must be performed, but performed a certain way, IN ORDER TO OBTAIN salvation.

But since we're saved by grace, water baptism is a symbol that identifies us that we've been crucified/buried with Christ, and raised to newness of life.
Any group that tries to put rules on a proper formula and saying, Do it like this you're in, like that you're out, This method only, is missing the mark and putting restrictions on ppl and salvation itself.

What if someone CANT get submerged? Then they start coming up with exceptions and loopholes, etc. It gets complicated.
No no no. We're saved by grace. And yes, water baptism is a great thing to do as a way to make a stand before God and man that Jesus saved you. I stop short of calling it 'an act of obedience' bc that borders on more legalism if not understood correctly.

It should be a joyous occasion, and we should want to jump in head first and splash all around because the Son of God has taken away our sins and washed us in His blood and given us the gift of eternal life, Praise the Lord!

It is also admittedly a very serious thing because you are giving your life to the One who gave His life to you, and when you think about who He is and what He did for us, you see water baptism as both joyous and sacred, it's no mere moment of frivolity in time for a boring weekend.

And we have for us the examples from the past, ppl went to the river and got dunked.
When Jesus did it, He basically did it FOR us. He certainly didn't do it to confess sins or be washed clean from iniquity.
But if we want a model, not a formula or requirement like law, but an example, submersion would seem to be it.

I'm not sure where the whole sprinkling with water came about, except maybe to avoid some from drowning. But whatever floats you're boat. The main thing is we're saved by Jesus, and how we make a public acknowledgement of that should be a freeing joyous occasion and not a burden that might make ppl feel guilty because they didn't do it exactly right.

 

[Josiah]

I think 'immersion only' isn't a good way to look at it from the start

But that IS the sole subject there. The apologetic is that the verb "baptize" MEANS "to immerse, to fully be enveloped by" and thus (the apologetic goes) it isn't baptism if it's not immersion. The entire apologetic is found on this very, very explicit MEANING of the verb. My question is: how does this verse, using the word "baptize" prove that apologetic true

And we have for us the examples from the past, ppl went to the river and got dunked.
When Jesus did it, He basically did it FOR us. He certainly didn't do it to confess sins or be washed clean from iniquity.
But if we want a model, not a formula or requirement like law, but an example, submersion would seem to be it.

Understood (however, that's an issue for another thread)...


But I hold to Sola Scriptura, and thus reject Tradition as normative. To me, it doesn't matter what traditions the Jews held to as recorded in the Bible. In other words, I reject the premise of "If the Jews did something a certain way ERGO it is a dogmatic mandate that all Christians MUST do/perform things exactly the same way for all time." To ME, Tradition (especially JEWISH Tradition) is not the norm, Scripture is - what Scripture TEACHES (not things Jews DID).

I think this point of "We gotta DO as they DID and no different" gets one into a real mess. For example, John the Baptist was a Jew..... he baptized in the JORDAN.... he only baptized JEWS. Therefore, if what HE did is the mandate, then only Jewish men can baptize people.... it must be done in the Jordan River.... and only Jews can be baptized. It's a very poor rubric, IMO.

And of course, the Bible does not say that Jesus was IMMERSED. It only says He went down TO the water and came up FROM the water - nothing about being immersed into and covered by water, nothing about being "enveloped by" the water. Yet - we know that's how Jews performed this particular type of Jewish baptism, so HISTORY (not the Bible) tells us He was immersed. So what? We also know that by 110 AD, Christians were baptizing by sprinkling, too. So what? For Protestants anyway, Tradition is not normative (especially not JEWISH Tradition!), the Bible is. And most conclude the Bible never says, "And thou shalt apply the water by doing x,y,z" MOST conclude the Bible is silent on any mandated mode of water application. Silent = no dogmatic teaching, no insistence. It just says GO and DO it. Nothing about the means.... But all that is WAY off topic. The issue here is singular: Those who say it must be by immersion based that on the MEANING of the verb "baptism" stressing it MEANS "to immerse, to fully cover, to entirely dip into." This, the apologetic goes, baptism MUST be by immersion or it's not baptism (and thus invalid).



Thank you.


Pax Christi


- Josiah



.

 

[user1234]

Hi Josiah
In the above post#15, I was saying that immersion ONLY wasn't a good place for THEM (the ones who adhere to it) to start. Meaning any kind of works or rigid formula attached to salvation isn't a good idea to begin with.
Not that it wasn't good for your THREAD discussion, but just that for church groups it's rarely a good idea to set up a rule that says, 'Do this like this, or you're out', since salvation is a gift of God by grace through faith in Jesus.

As far as any Jewish tradition, again, I wasn't saying we must do things a specific way bc of a traditional practice, but merely stating that if ppl ARE looking for an example, we have Jesus for starters, who by all likelihood, was immersed, .... It would be a stretch to assume that scripture is implying that He was baptised by 'sprinkling' or some other way, if there is one. I would agree with Rens, you don't get buried by having sand sprinkled on your head, lol.

Do you know if it says anywhere where the definition of the word baptism strictly means immersion only? My Websters says it's a religious ritual performed with water, but doesn't say specifically how the water is used.
Could it be that the proponents are forcing their own narrower definition onto the word in order to try to prove out their personal position?

At any rate, I still think immersion best represents being buried with Christ and risen to newness of life. Him down and in the ground, us down and in the water...Him up and out of the ground, us up and out of the water.
But I also don't think ANY method is exclusively the only acceptable one, nor do I think water-baptism is necessary for salvation at all. GBU.

 

[Josiah]

Hi Josiah


As far as any Jewish tradition, again, I wasn't saying we must do things a specific way bc of a traditional practice, but merely stating that if ppl ARE looking for an example, we have Jesus for starters, who by all likelihood, was immersed, .... It would be a stretch to assume that scripture is implying that He was baptised by 'sprinkling' or some other way, if there is one. I would agree with Rens, you don't get buried by having sand sprinkled on your head, lol.

Thank you.


My position is that it's not a good rubric to substitute the teaching of Scripture (Sola Scriptura) for Tradition (especially not Jewish Tradition): that the norm is not what Jews DID (as recorded in the Bible) but as Scripture TEACHES.

Again, if we go with Tradition rather than Scripture, then we must baptize as the Jews did (as recorded in the Bible). For example, when Jesus was baptized it was administered by a Jewish man, to only Jewish people, in the Jordan River. So the only valid Baptisms would be those administered by a Jewish man, to Jewish people, done in the Jordan River. Or consider Communion: if we have to DO things the WAY we see modeled in the Bible, then we might look to the Upper Room.... Jesus instituted it (a Jewish man, a Jewish rabbi), likely only Hebrew men receieved it, it was a part of the Sader Meal, with wine in the large common cup and matza bread - all in an upper room. If the norm is TRADITION, then we'd need to DO things the same way (or it would be invalid) - thus Communion would need to be instituted by a Jewish male rabbi, in an upper room, as a part of a Sadar meal, given only to Hebrew males, from a common cup of wine and Matza bread. And probably in the Aramaic language. IMO, while many SAY we must use Tradition as the norm rather than Scripture, they actually don't do it.... in truth, they likely do NOTHING the way people did it in the Bible. But again, as a Protestant, I hold to Sola Scriptura and reject Tradition as normative instead.

Do you know if it says anywhere where the definition of the word baptism strictly means immersion only?

See the opening post....


The apologetic for immersion only is this: The word "baptism" MEANS "immersion" (they claim) and THEREFORE the word itself mandates immersion, to be fully enveloped in water. Anything other is not baptism, they claim. I simply brought up the verse in the opening post with a simple question: Does the word "baptism" here prove that the word means "immersion", to be "fully enveloped" in water? Or is the apologetic, well..... all wet (lol).

But I also don't think ANY method is exclusively the only acceptable one.

Personally, I agree.



Pax Christi



- Josiah

 

[Cassia]

Assuming we are Judaism which we are not then from what I've been hearing the most MJ believe that Pauls vow proves that all Jewish Christian must be still under law. No jew gentile we are one in Christ there. The ONLY possible reasoning behind the law being in effect for anyone. (Brings that to women not being included in the Jubilee of Christ just as all jews are not)
But if we're to follow ot script and heaven forbid not traditional tulmid what we would see is Jesus setting no example of baptism at all except for the breath and fire.