# Immersion?



## CalvinandHodges

Hey:

Mayflower posted a rather detailed, and lenghty, thread that sought to prove that Immersion was the only way to define the Biblical words related to "Baptism." He has done a monumental job in advancing the cause of Sprinkling as the only Biblical means by which the Sacrament should be practiced.

Why? You may ask? Immersionists pay attention here.

Immersionists pride themselves on being "Biblical." They even have a joke they pass around about a Baptist going to a Presbyterian book table, and not being able to find a Bible on it. I think they make these jokes because there is no Biblical evidence of an Immersion ever taking place. 

Their method of argumentation does not start and end with the Bible, but, like Mayflower has shown, they begin with lexicons, quotations from church fathers, pagan sources, and even paedo-baptists who all agree that the literal definition of "baptize" is to plunge, or immerse.

Consequently, they stand outside of the Bible, find a definition that suits their needs, then they thrust their definition into the Bible at every point they can find. I think Pilgrim's response to this was most appropriate:



> So much for sola scriptura, eh?



If I was a Baptist, and I have prided myself about how "Biblical" my views are in light of the "Romish" paedo-baptists, then I would have been embarrassed by Mayflower's post, and repudiate him for his non-Biblical arguments.

In every argument the Immersionist makes he first turns to Greek scholars - both pagans and Christians - church historians, and paedo-baptists who acknowledge the literal definition of the word. They then take this literal definition of the word and apply it to every instance where "Baptism" is found.

If we take the Bible alone, then we find that there is no clear case of Immersion to be found in any of the passages where "Baptism" is referred. The Reformed view of defining a word in the Bible is seeing how the Bible uses it - not how Aristotle may have thought it meant.

The Immersionists has to take his "outside of the Bible" definition, and then cram it into a place where it doesn't belong.

How does the meaning "to dip" fit here:

*And when they come from the market, except they baptize they eat not. And many other things they have received to hold, as the baptizing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables, Mark 7:4.*

Are the Pharisees Immersing themselves every time before they eat? Do they immerse the cups and pots, brasen vessels as well? The washing of these things is more likely to have been done by pouring water upon it.

What is more remarkable are the tables. Do you honestly think that the Jews carried their tables to a lake or river and fully immersed them *every time before they ate?* Isn't it more likely that they sprinkled or poured water on the tables, and then washed them with a clean rag?

In these instances the "water" of baptism is being applied to the articles in question. The things are not being applied to the water. The Scriptural mode of Baptism is when the water is applied to the subject, not the subject to the water. This is not only proven here, but in all instances where Baptism occurs.

Buried with Him in Baptism?

After showing from their lexicons that Baptism can only be defined as "dipping" they turn to two passages in Scripture that seem to justify their definition, Rom. 6:4, Col. 2:12. It is on the strength of these two passages that Immersionists claim another argument for their views of Baptism. They say something to the effect:

"Baptism is commemorative of the Burial and Resurrection of Jesus."

Plunging the subject into the water is commemorative of the burial of Jesus, and pulling him/her out of his resurrection.

First, none of the Gospels mention that Jesus was literally buried. The only places where Jesus was said to be "buried" is the above two passages. This seems to indicate that Paul is not talking about a literal burial, but of a figurative one - our sins are buried by our union with Christ.

Second, Immersion is not at all similar to the "burial" of Christ. Jesus was wrapped in a linen cloth and laid in a tomb or sepulchre. They did not dig a six foot hole and "plunge" him in the earth, and then He rose again from the ground. Reading the Gospel accounts how can anyone think that Jesus was "plunged"?

Third, the burial of Jesus has nothing to do with His atoning work - it is His death. They could just as easily left his body hanging for three days, and He still would have been resurrected. Or, they could have placed His body in the Upper Room, and sealed it, and He still would have rose three days later. The mode of His burial has no theological significance whatsoever.

"Buried with him in Baptism" means that we are united to Christ through His death. Paul is using the word "buried" figuratively of the death of Christ. He is certainly not using the term literally meaning that the literal burial of Christ had something to do with our salvation. If such would be the case, then it was not the work of Christ alone that saves us, because it took the work of men to bury Christ (Joseph of Arimathaea and his servants, Mark 15:42-47).

Finally, we already have a rite that commemorates the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ - The Christian Sabbath.

The Baptism of Jesus and the Eunuch.

Jesus was Baptized by John in the river Jordan. In examing all of the records of Jesus' Baptism I fail to see the idea of an immersion. They refer to Jesus going "into" the water, and coming out of it.

But did not John go "into" the water as well. Yet, John was not baptized as well at the same time? One can go "into" the river Jordan, but not go "under" it. The words of Jesus tell us that He did not go "under" the water, but was sprinkled.

First, Jesus Christ - the Second Adam - the God/Man - did not need to be washed either ceremonially or spiritually of any uncleanness. John the Baptist acknowledged this when he tries to forbid Jesus Baptism, Mat. 3:14.

Second, Jesus Christ - the Great High Priest - the Messiah - the One who came to fulfill the Law in all righteousness - said He had to be Baptized as a means of fulfilling all righteousness. This can only mean that there is a law in the Old Testament that required the rite of Baptism on Priests.

Third, there is such a law found in Numbers 8:5-7:

*And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them. And thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean.*

It is clear that John did not Baptize Jesus by Immersion, but was following the Law and sprinkled Jesus according to it. What is also clear is that John saw the Holy Spirit "descending" upon Jesus afterward. Jesus was not "plunged into" the Holy Spirit.

Baptism does not commemorate the burial and resurrection of Jesus, but the "washing and renewing" of the Holy Spirit. It represents the Work of the Holy Spirit. And the Bible always represents the Spirit of God as "descending" or being "poured" upon men and women. Thus, "sprnkling" or "pouring" water upon the subject is the only Scriptural mode of Baptism.

As far as the Eunuch is concerned the Bible says that both the Ethiopian and Philip "went into the water," and that they both went up out of it. I think it very unlikely that Philip was Immersed with the Ethiopian.

That pouring or sprinkling are representative of the Work of the Holy Spirit I will leave that to my brother paedo-baptists to prove.

Using lexicons and quotations is not the same thing as using the Bible alone.

Blessings,

-CH

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Kevin

Well said!


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

I guess the onus is on me to show that the true Biblical mode of Baptism is by Sprinkling and Sprinkling or Pouring only.

*1. The Baptism of Jesus was by sprinkling and sprinkling or pouring only. *

This was mentioned in the OP, but since Immersionists (IM's) so desperately rely on this incident it is good to go over again. First, the IM's argument:

*And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him, Mark 1:10.*

IM's think this passage settles the issue. The phrase, "coming up out of the water" is a clear indicative (they think) that Christ was plunged into the water, and that he was being pulled out of it. It was during this "coming up out of the water" that the Spirit of God descends upon Jesus like a dove.

In all of the narratives concerning the Baptism of Jesus it is reported that John the Baptist was the one who saw, and testified, that the Spirit descended upon Jesus. There is an improbability here: If John is busy pulling Jesus out of the water, then how can he see the Spirit of God descend upon Jesus? Of all of the Immersions I have seen the one who is administering the Immersion (like John the Baptist) is looking down, not up.

The Bible is emphatic that it was done immediately, "straightway" (_eutheos_) as Jesus is "coming up out of the water" the Spirit of God, "Descends upon Him like a dove." For the Immersionist picture to work John the Baptist would have to stop pulling Jesus out of the water, turn his head 180 degress, and look up, then watch the Holy Spirit descend upon Jesus as he finishes pulling Jesus out of the water.

The present tense "coming" makes the Immersionist view implausible. The Paedo-Baptist view of this you will find lower down.

*2) The Baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch,Acts 8:38,39:*

*And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.*

After reading all of the extra-biblical lexicons, quotations from pagan and sacred sources, and telling us about how Aristotle and Plato thought about the meaning of Baptism one can be blinded into thinking that this passage confirms Immersion. However, if such preconceived notions are stripped away, then Immersion would be impossible to find.

The most obvious point made here is that Philip and the eunuch, "went down *both* into the water, *both* Philip and the eunuch. The Bible uses the term "both" twice in order to emphatically teach something. What is it saying? That both Philip and the eunuch, "went down both into the water."

Can the Bible be any more plain? 

If the Ethiopian eunuch was "fully Immersed" because he "went into the water," then it would follow that Philip was also Immersed because he went "into the water" with the eunuch. The Bible would not be so emphatic if it were not the case. The only way for the IM's to talk their way out of it is for them to cling to their extra-Biblical idea about the meaning of Baptism.

I would like to go to the Paedo-Baptist views on the passages cited above, because I find them fascinating and throughly Biblical. But I think that I should point out the way the Bible defines the word "Baptism" and oppose this definition with the Immersionists use of the Greek Philosophers.

*The Bible Alone vs. the Greek lexicons and philosophers:*

In the OP I already pointed out the connection between the Baptism of Jesus, Matt. 3:15, and Numbers 8:6,7:

*Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them. And thus shalt thou do unto them, to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean.*

Again, the Scriptures use the term "cleanse" twice as a means of emphasis. The Priests in the OT were "cleansed" by the sprinkling of water upon them. Undoubtedly, this was the method John the Baptist used when he Baptized Jesus, "in order to fulfill all righteousness."

To "Dip" Jesus into the water when God commanded Sprinkling would have been a violation of the Word of God, and it would have been unrighteous.

*2) The Method of John the Baptist was Sprinkling with a hyssop branch, and not Immersion.*

John's theology of Baptism was very simple, *"...I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the holy Ghost and with fire, Luke 3:16.*

It follows that John considered his Baptism as symbolical of the Baptism of Jesus when the Holy Ghost would "descend" or be "poured out" upon all flesh. And, after the Baptism of Jesus he did witness the Holy Spirit descend upon Jesus.

But, Baptism was not an invention of John the Baptist. Ceremonial washings and cleansings are found throughout the Old Testament.

Heb. 9:19 - *For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people.*

Exo 29:21 - *And thou shalt take of the blood that is upon the altar, and of the anointing oil,and sprinkle it upon Aaron, and upon his garments, and upon his sons, and upon the garments of his sons with him: and he shall be hallowed, and his garments, and his sons, and his sons' garments with him. *

Eze 36:25 - *Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all, your idols, will I cleanse you.*

Dan 4:33 - *The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar: and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hairs were grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws. *

In this last passage Nebuchadnezzar is said to be "wet" with the dew of heaven. Yet, the Hebrew word here used for "wet" means "to dip" or "Immerse." Yet, it is clear that Nebuchadnezzar was "sprinkled" by the dew of heaven, and that he was not plunged into a lake, river, or bathtub.

It seems to me both reasonable and clear that a godly Bible Believing Man like John the Baptist would search the Scriptures to find the correct mode for Baptism. I doubt very much he would search Greek philosophies, Hebrew lexicons, and other such things for his method.

Would an Immersionist like to prove me wrong?

That Baptism as it is defined by the Bible is only done by sprinkling or pouring can be shown by many other verses. Of which I will have to demonstrate at a different time.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Blue Tick

Very convincing argument.

Nicely done!


----------



## AV1611

CalvinandHodges said:


> I guess the onus is on me to show that the true Biblical mode of Baptism is by Sprinkling and Sprinkling only.



I would say either sprinkling or pouring


----------



## Zadok

It is amazing how convincing the arguments can seem when one is already a convert. 

If only I had the time to demonstrate the weakness of the arguments that some find sooooo convincing ......Sigh! Groan!

Just for starters those who want to read of the Jewish practice of washing pots, pans, tables and much much more please refer to:

 John Gill's Tracts on Baptism to be found here


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Zadok said:


> It is amazing how convincing the arguments can seem when one is already a convert.



Are you referring to yourself? or someone else?



> If only I had the time to demonstrate the weakness of the arguments that some find sooooo convincing ......Sigh! Groan!



No one is going anywhere, take your time, and show us how wrong we are. By the way - I was once a credo-baptist like you.



> Just for starters those who want to read of the Jewish practice of washing pots, pans, tables and much much more please refer to:
> 
> John Gill's Tracts on Baptism to be found here



"Infant Baptism - a relic of popery" - Gill is a real unbiased source isn't he? 

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## Zadok

CalvinandHodges said:


> "Infant Baptism - a relic of popery" - Gill is a real unbiased source isn't he?
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> 
> -CH




Yeah - almost as unbiased as your postings here


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Zadok said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Infant Baptism - a relic of popery" - Gill is a real unbiased source isn't he?
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> 
> -CH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah - almost as unbiased as your postings here
Click to expand...


----------



## greenbaggins

I usually take a slightly different tack on the baptism of Jesus. For one thing, a Baptist might note that the paedo argument advocated below has difficulty with the pronouns. *Who* looked up and saw the Spirit descending on *him*? The pronouns are ambiguous. However, given the fact that the second pronoun must refer to Jesus, and given the fact that Jesus was the subject of the passive and active verbs in verse 9, it seems rather conclusive to me that _Jesus_ is the One who saw the heavens opened, and Jesus was the One upon whom the Spirit descended. However, the passage is completely inconclusive with regard to immersion, given the geography of the Jordan River, which has extremely steep banks leading to a rather shallow river. One would have to be standing in the river to make use of the water in the river _at all_. So "coming up from the water" could just as easily mean "got out of the Jordan" as meaning "came up from underneath the water." If they were coming up out of the Jordan River, then the baptism is done (though just done: "euthus"), and as they climb out of the Jordan, Jesus sees the heavens open and the Spirit descend upon Him.


----------



## VictorBravo

Zadok said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Infant Baptism - a relic of popery" - Gill is a real unbiased source isn't he?
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> 
> -CH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah - almost as unbiased as your postings here
Click to expand...


Just an aside, what's wrong with bias, anyway? Are we supposed to be neutral and only read neutral people? I thought this was the PuritanBoard!?!


----------



## Grymir




----------



## Simply_Nikki

Grymir said:


>


 
LOL Okay the real funny thing is i'm actually eating popcorn right now.


----------



## Grymir

Simply_Nikki said:


> Grymir said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL Okay the real funny thing is i'm actually eating popcorn right now.
Click to expand...



I wish I was! I'm gluing PVC pipe right now, so I can't enter a full reply, especially since I'm a Credo-dunker! This will be my first foray into the baptism debate, since I also affirm the validity of paedo dunking (I wish, o.k., paedo sprinkling). I'm looking forward to this!! By the way, I'm PCUSA, and we have all kinds of things on our tables, but no Bibles!

Just waiting till the glue dries - Grymir


----------



## DMcFadden

I am personally putting off the ordeal of digging into all of the arguments again for myself until later in the year (due to some other professional responsibilities). However, having a little exposure to arguments by people like Robert ("I was once a credo-baptist like you") and Lane over the years, it seems to me that Satch is correct whether you hold to immersion or sprinkling: "It is amazing how convincing the arguments can seem when one is already a convert."

Both the WCF and the Savoy use exactly the same words to describe the sufficiency of the Word of God to accomplish all that is necessary for God's glory and for our "salvation, faith, and life."

"The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture; unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men." — WCF

The 1689 LBCF phrases it somewhat differently but to the same effect:

"The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the Holy Scripture; unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men."— 1689 

We all agree that the NT teaches either immersion or sprinking, not both. As we also probably all agree that it teaches either credo OR paedo baptism. However, upholders of both the WCF and the 1689 are in significant disagrement as to which conclusion correctly renders the teaching of the Word of God. Obviously, the issue is not one of wanting to be faithful to the teaching of the Bible; BOTH sides strive to do that. And, both the WCF and the 1689 use very similar words to describe their adherance to the same standard of authority, despite the fact that they reach opposite conclusions as to the proper teaching of that scripture.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

victorbravo said:


> Zadok said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Infant Baptism - a relic of popery" - Gill is a real unbiased source isn't he?
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> 
> -CH
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah - almost as unbiased as your postings here
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just an aside, what's wrong with bias, anyway? Are we supposed to be neutral and only read neutral people? I thought this was the PuritanBoard!?!
Click to expand...



WOW.... VIC, actually posted in a Baptism Thread. I am amazed. 

I am taking a rest from such at this time. Life is good smelling the flowers of Spring.


----------



## VictorBravo

PuritanCovenanter said:


> WOW.... VIC, actually posted in a Baptism Thread. I am amazed.
> 
> I am taking a rest from such at this time. Life is good smelling the flowers of Spring.



 Once a year, brother.


----------



## Grymir

O.K. I'm ready!! I finished planting a Mr. Lincoln rose, fresia's, and some zinnia's. My wife and I are cooking hamburgers and some freedom fries. Life is good today so far! Time to debate and discuss, which is what it says above. Which I like. It also says something about all others refrain, but I hope people will jump in with their two cents, because I like to hear good arguments and reasons for both side, no matter tough it sounds to liberals. (Oh why can't we just get along? They don't have any opinions worth taking seriously or fighting for.)

I have a few questions -

1. What does O.T. ritual washing have to do with baptism?

2. Jesus' baptism was not our baptism. His was to fulfill O.T. law. Jesus said that the Prophets and the law were untill John. (By the way, John dunked, not no hyssop)

3. Since the N.T. does talk about dunking, why is this not the norm.

The sprinkling and pouring started with the church when the water was scarce and/or they were in hiding in the catacombs. In which case sprinkling/pouring would be O.K. and justified. So shouldn't immersion be the best, and sprinkling/pouring be allowed if a dunking place is not availiable.

Anyway, let the great conversation begin. - Grymir

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Grymir

P.s. I understand people's hesitation in getting involved. These things can degenerate. But that's o.k. Believe it or not, some of us really consider the things said, even if I am biased.


----------



## Poimen

Grymir:

1. What does anything in the NT have to do with the Old? Promise-> fulfillment

2. I am not entirely convinced that Jesus baptism is (entirely) normative for ours but I am convinced that since He came to fulfill all righteousness (Matthew 3:15) it does has _something_ to do with me. Romans 3:21ff.

3. Where? And if the NT does cite dunking as a valid mode of baptism (which many would agree) does it make it the norm?

4. The mode of baptism depends upon what is taught by scripture in accord with what best fits the NT model. This is what CalvinandHodges has attempted to demonstrate. Perhaps you would do well to interact with his arguments and show where they are fallacious?


----------



## Grymir

Hi Poimen! I thought I was. Some debates end up with people not relating to each other, but just copying and pasting there representative authorities. I was taking a different approach and questioning his premises. The question on what does OT ritual washing have to do with baptism relates to what CalvinandHodges was using as one of his main arguments. But since they are not related, I was questioning its use. 

Calvin was also talking about John using hyssop to baptize Jesus with. That statement is based on the ritual washing in OT. John's baptism of Jesus wasn't a ritual washing. ie it says when he came out of the water. So that premise is fallacious.

One of the hermetical rules is that types and shadows exist, but if they are not specifically linked in the Bible, we can't link them either. 

CalvinandHodges quote - "In every argument the Immersionist makes he first turns to Greek scholars - both pagans and Christians - church historians, and paedo-baptists who acknowledge the literal definition of the word. They then take this literal definition of the word and apply it to every instance where "Baptism" is found.

If we take the Bible alone, then we find that there is no clear case of Immersion to be found in any of the passages where "Baptism" is referred. The Reformed view of defining a word in the Bible is seeing how the Bible uses it - not how Aristotle may have thought it meant.

The Immersionists has to take his "outside of the Bible" definition, and then cram it into a place where it doesn't belong." - end quote

This is a straw man argument and probably ad homium. There's nothing wrong with the study of church history, and early church history is great because they were around when this stuff was first proclaimed. There are 2 examples in NT, Jesus and the Eunuch at least. Not to mention what Baptiso means. The stuff about cramming, well, need I explain it? And Aristotle? (A good theologian is a Platonist anyway )

I was trying to start a dialog to see were he got these premise and to challenge them on that level, to take a more personal and conversational approach. I wanted to know the connection between OT ritual washing and Baptism, as he is claiming to want Biblical Proof, and I don't see Biblical Proof for the connection.

Anyway, I hope you are reading CalvinandHodges, because I am mostly answering Poimen with this post, And I do want a dialog. - Grymir


----------



## VictorBravo

Grymir said:


> This is a straw man argument and probably ad homium. There's nothing wrong with the study of church history, and early church history is great because they were around when this stuff was first proclaimed. There are 2 examples in NT, Jesus and the Eunuch at least. Not to mention what Baptiso means. The stuff about cramming, well, need I explain it? And Aristotle? (A good theologian is a Platonist anyway )



With respect, brother Grym , you missed C&H's point: He argues that baptiso does not mean what you think it means. He's got a good argument.

And the main reason I'm not joining in is not because of timidity, but, rather, fatigue. Mode is not a hot button for me, but an interesting argument can be.


----------



## Poimen

Sorry Grymir. But since you really didn't address CalvinandHodges evidence/arguments in your questions I assumed you were simply asking these questions out loud.


----------



## Kaalvenist

A few books I've read recently (Fairfield, Sommerville, et al.) take a slightly different tack.

Usually when the definition of _baptizo_ is cited as evidence of immersion, it's the classical meaning or definition. But such does not determine biblical usage... especially when used to refer to a rite or ordinance. The other sacrament is the Lord's "supper" (_deipnon_) -- a word that, in classical Greek, meant a full meal... but in the Bible refers to partaking of a small helping of bread and wine. Likewise, _baptizo_ may very well have meant "immersion," "dipping," "dunking," "plunging," etc. in classical Greek. But that is quite irrelevant to our consideration.


----------



## Grymir

Kaalvenist - That's a good point, although not totally irrelevant. I've read a bunch of the church fathers and early history. It seems that Baptism was done by dunking, but that a lack of water (in Africa, which was debated by them, and in the catacombs under Rome during the persecution). That's when the sprinkling, or more to what they said, pouring out of the Holy Spirit came to exist. 

The use of the Lords 'supper' is spelled out clearly, so we know that it's bread and wine. And the context in scripture spell out dunking to. ie, coming out of water, going to the water. Which brings us to the premises that I was getting at in my previous posts.

Personally, I can go either way, but I'm a dunking is best.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Grymir said:


> O.K. I'm ready!! I finished planting a Mr. Lincoln rose, fresia's, and some zinnia's. My wife and I are cooking hamburgers and some freedom fries. Life is good today so far! Time to debate and discuss, which is what it says above. Which I like. It also says something about all others refrain, but I hope people will jump in with their two cents, because I like to hear good arguments and reasons for both side, no matter tough it sounds to liberals. (Oh why can't we just get along? They don't have any opinions worth taking seriously or fighting for.)
> 
> I have a few questions -
> 
> 1. What does O.T. ritual washing have to do with baptism?
> 
> 2. Jesus' baptism was not our baptism. His was to fulfill O.T. law. Jesus said that the Prophets and the law were untill John. (By the way, John dunked, not no hyssop)
> 
> 3. Since the N.T. does talk about dunking, why is this not the norm.
> 
> The sprinkling and pouring started with the church when the water was scarce and/or they were in hiding in the catacombs. In which case sprinkling/pouring would be O.K. and justified. So shouldn't immersion be the best, and sprinkling/pouring be allowed if a dunking place is not availiable.
> 
> Anyway, let the great conversation begin. - Grymir



Hi Grymir:

Before getting to your questions I will mention others above.

Zadoc works a non-argument - apparently thinking that a bias causes an argument to be void. My point was that his citation of John Gill is just as biased as a paedo-baptist. Until he can form an argument his own "bias" should be made known to him.

Victorbravo: There is nothing wrong with a bias until someone, like Zadoc, tries to point one out on his opposition. As a VanTillian Presuppositionalist I have no problem with a bias. I am simply using Zadoc's own argument against himself. Since he seems it is an effective argument, then he should be able to swallow his own points.

Is that fair?

GreenBaggins: I appreciate your use of the pronouns. But it was John the Baptist who saw and witnessed the descent of the Holy Spirit:



> Joh 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.


The testimony of the Scriptures are greater than that of lexicons, and pronouns.

Now to Grymir's questions - which I believe are excellent:

1) OT washings and baptisms have great bearing concerning how John the Baptist would conceive of his baptism ministry. Why?

Ans. Because John was the greatest of the OT prophets, Matt. 11:11, and an OT prophet worked according to the revealed Word of God, and did not do things on his own.

Ans. Because Baptism was not invented by John the Baptist, Jn. 1:25. Therefore the OT view of Baptism would have profound effect on John's view of Baptism. If John were Baptizing improperly, then he would have been condemned for it.

2) I agree. However, the Immersionists make a large fuss over the idea that Jesus was "immersed," and, therefore, we should follow Jesus and be immersed.

3) Where does the NT talk about dunking?

If you had read the OP carefully, then you would know that this thread was composed against a thread written by Mayflower. I have pointed it out enough in the OP for it not to have been noticed.

Grace and Peace,

-CH

PS: In all of my posts on Baptism I have sought only to use the Bible without extra-biblical resources as "proof" of my position. I do not cut and paste.


----------



## Grymir

CalvinandHodges said:


> If you had read the OP carefully, then you would know that this thread was composed against a thread written by Mayflower. I have pointed it out enough in the OP for it not to have been noticed.
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> 
> -CH
> 
> PS: In all of my posts on Baptism I have sought only to use the Bible without extra-biblical resources as "proof" of my position. I do not cut and paste.



Oh, yeah I know that! (that you didn't cut and paste) That's why I decided to get my baptism debate feet wet with your thread. I'm gonna try and find the Mayflower thread to see his line of arguementation. And yes, you pointed it out enough, but I chose to ignore it. Most of the threads us the same stuff over and over and over with the people talking past each other, so I assumed the same. Sorry, I'm gonna go track it down and read. Then I'll be back to disscus premises. Tally ho - Grymir


----------



## Grymir

[insert Dr. Who Theme music emoticon here]

I'm back. Man. What year is this? Now I understand you're cut and paste comment, and how mine seemed. I hadn't read Mayflower's thread yet, but now that I have, I wouldn't have made the cut and paste comment. 


I did think there was one quote that summed up the whole baptism debate in a couple of sentences - "It is often, but erroneously, supposed that the controversy between our baptist brethren and the rest of the Christian Church with respect to Baptism is a question of mode; they affirming that the only right mode is to immerse -- we affirming that the best mode is to sprinkle. This is a great mistake. The real Baptist position -- as stated by Dr. Alexander Carson (p. 55) -- is, that the command to baptize is a simple and single command to immerse, in order to symbolize the death, burial, and resurrection of the believer with Christ. The true position maintained by other Christians is, that Baptism is a simple and single command to wash with water, in order to symbolize the purification wrought by the Holy Ghost. Hence the mode of washing has nothing to do with it."

As an immersionist, I'm theologicaly saying it's one thing, and a sprinkler would be theologicaly saying another. The mode reflects the theology. hmmm. 

Anyway, I'm gonna climb back aboard the Tardis and go back to the 21st. century - Grymir.

p.s. - that doesn't mean I'm leaving this thread.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Grymir said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had read the OP carefully, then you would know that this thread was composed against a thread written by Mayflower. I have pointed it out enough in the OP for it not to have been noticed.
> 
> Grace and Peace,
> 
> -CH
> 
> PS: In all of my posts on Baptism I have sought only to use the Bible without extra-biblical resources as "proof" of my position. I do not cut and paste.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, yeah I know that! (that you didn't cut and paste) That's why I decided to get my baptism debate feet wet with your thread. I'm gonna try and find the Mayflower thread to see his line of arguementation. And yes, you pointed it out enough, but I chose to ignore it. Most of the threads us the same stuff over and over and over with the people talking past each other, so I assumed the same. Sorry, I'm gonna go track it down and read. Then I'll be back to disscus premises. Tally ho - Grymir
Click to expand...


Hi:

I appreciate your spirit, and I patiently await your arguments/questions. I should remind you, though, that Sprinkling *does not prove infant baptism*. One can hold to Sprinkling and still believe in Believer's Only Baptism.

I would like to submit an idea to all those reading:

If the Bible teaches that the Mode of Baptism is important, then it would follow that those who are apathetic concerning the Mode are unscriptual. In other words: If you allow one and the other Mode to be acceptable, when the Bible teaches only one Mode, then you are adding to the teachings of the Bible, Rev. 22:18,19.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Grymir

[insert more Dr. Who theme music emoticon here]

Hi Calvin! My mighty Tardis did it's posting milliseconds before yours. And you are right about the If the Bible teaches that the Mode of Baptism is important stuff. But most of my views got worked out by the Bible and reading of the Church Fathers. They were discussing African Baptism's with the water shortages, and the Roman's that were hiding in the catacombs. The discussions (and hurled anathema's ) were discussing the validity of the baptism's that didn't have enough water to Baptize by immersion, then sprinkling was allowed. Then the pouring out of the Holy Spirit theological reason started too! 

[insert more Tardis sounds emoticon here]


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Grymir said:


> [insert more Dr. Who theme music emoticon here]
> 
> Hi Calvin! My mighty Tardis did it's posting milliseconds before yours. And you are right about the If the Bible teaches that the Mode of Baptism is important stuff. But most of my views got worked out by the Bible and reading of the Church Fathers. They were discussing African Baptism's with the water shortages, and the Roman's that were hiding in the catacombs. The discussions (and hurled anathema's ) were discussing the validity of the baptism's that didn't have enough water to Baptize by immersion, then sprinkling was allowed. Then the pouring out of the Holy Spirit theological reason started too!
> 
> [insert more Tardis sounds emoticon here]



Knock off the snide comments Grymir. If you cannot participate in a theological discussion without whining about how long it takes to read things then don't participate in them.


----------



## Grymir

Hi Semper! I wasn't being snide, nor was I whining. I'm sorry if it came across that way. It's late at night and I was trying to liven things up a bit. I will be more careful.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Thanks. I just don't think your method of "livening things up" shows adequate respect to the work that somebody has done in trying to lay out an argument or present material. It has the feel of casting ridicule at it so please be mindful of that.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Grymir said:


> [insert more Dr. Who theme music emoticon here]
> 
> Hi Calvin! My mighty Tardis did it's posting milliseconds before yours. And you are right about the If the Bible teaches that the Mode of Baptism is important stuff. But most of my views got worked out by the Bible and reading of the Church Fathers. They were discussing African Baptism's with the water shortages, and the Roman's that were hiding in the catacombs. The discussions (and hurled anathema's ) were discussing the validity of the baptism's that didn't have enough water to Baptize by immersion, then sprinkling was allowed. Then the pouring out of the Holy Spirit theological reason started too!
> 
> [insert more Tardis sounds emoticon here]



[insert the Matrix theme here]

There is not much I can say against the Church Fathers except that even the most Godly can be wrong. If you keep digging, then you will find that they also required men, women, virgins, children to be baptized naked without exception. They also universally accepted infant baptism.

I much prefer to argue the Bible only rathar than wrangle over lexicons and the statements of Church Fathers.

[insert Star Wars episode 4 ending music]


----------



## Grymir

I think my post #28 got missed in the shuffle

I got this quote from the other thread - "It is often, but erroneously, supposed that the controversy between our baptist brethren and the rest of the Christian Church with respect to Baptism is a question of mode; they affirming that the only right mode is to immerse -- we affirming that the best mode is to sprinkle. This is a great mistake. The real Baptist position -- as stated by Dr. Alexander Carson (p. 55) -- is, that the command to baptize is a simple and single command to immerse, in order to symbolize the death, burial, and resurrection of the believer with Christ. The true position maintained by other Christians is, that Baptism is a simple and single command to wash with water, in order to symbolize the purification wrought by the Holy Ghost. Hence the mode of washing has nothing to do with it."

hmm... Is this what is behind the whole baptism debate (the theology behind it) or do people debate about the mode only, without the theology?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Grymir said:


> I think my post #28 got missed in the shuffle
> 
> I got this quote from the other thread - "It is often, but erroneously, supposed that the controversy between our baptist brethren and the rest of the Christian Church with respect to Baptism is a question of mode; they affirming that the only right mode is to immerse -- we affirming that the best mode is to sprinkle. This is a great mistake. The real Baptist position -- as stated by Dr. Alexander Carson (p. 55) -- is, that the command to baptize is a simple and single command to immerse, in order to symbolize the death, burial, and resurrection of the believer with Christ. The true position maintained by other Christians is, that Baptism is a simple and single command to wash with water, in order to symbolize the purification wrought by the Holy Ghost. Hence the mode of washing has nothing to do with it."
> 
> hmm... Is this what is behind the whole baptism debate (the theology behind it) or do people debate about the mode only, without the theology?




Hi:

I think that Believer Baptist Only people will say that they come to their conclusion from their theology. That their theology comes from the Scriptures.

The problem is that they don't use the Bible only when they come to their theology. They use extra-biblical lexicons in order to define the word "Baptism," then they place the definition everywhere they can find the word.

The Reformed view in defining a word is called the _Analogia Fidei_. We are to search and see how the Scriptures use the word, and then form a definition from it. In doing so: one cannot find a clear use of the word "Baptism" literally anywhere in the Bible. In all of the clear uses of the term "Baptism" or its equivalent in the OT and NT pouring or sprinkling is mentioned. Not Immersion.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## Kevin

Grymir said:


> O.K. I'm ready!! I finished planting a Mr. Lincoln rose, fresia's, and some zinnia's. My wife and I are cooking hamburgers and some freedom fries. Life is good today so far! Time to debate and discuss, which is what it says above. Which I like. It also says something about all others refrain, but I hope people will jump in with their two cents, because I like to hear good arguments and reasons for both side, no matter tough it sounds to liberals. (Oh why can't we just get along? They don't have any opinions worth taking seriously or fighting for.)
> 
> I have a few questions -
> 
> 1. What does O.T. ritual washing have to do with baptism?
> 
> 2. Jesus' baptism was not our baptism. His was to fulfill O.T. law. Jesus said that the Prophets and the law were untill John. (By the way, John dunked, not no hyssop)
> 
> 3. Since the N.T. does talk about dunking, why is this not the norm.
> 
> The sprinkling and pouring started with the church when the water was scarce and/or they were in hiding in the catacombs. In which case sprinkling/pouring would be O.K. and justified. So shouldn't immersion be the best, and sprinkling/pouring be allowed if a dunking place is not availiable.
> 
> Anyway, let the great conversation begin. - Grymir



Re #1, Alot. 
a) The book of Hebrews (ch9) calls these OT "ritual washings" "'baptisms". Any theory of the mode of baptism that does not (at least) permit sprinkling is therefore contrary to the clear teaching of scripture and is out of bounds.

b) Since these rituals are called "baptisms" in the NT, and are described repeatedly in the OT as by way of sprinkling, then sprinkling should be our *default* way to read baptism when we see it in the text, absent some compelling reason to read it otherwise. Say as "dunking".

Re #2, two seperate issues, the baptism of Jesus & Johns (mode of) baptism.
a) the baptism of Jesus was to keep the law (i.e. fulfill righteousness). Question what law was he fulfilling? Answer, one of the three (!) baptisms of the High Priest. The baptism with oil, is the holy Spirit as a dove. The baptism with blood of the sacrifice was himself on the cross. The baptism with water is, if not here by John, then NOT RECORDED IN THE NT!! Impossible! John as a high priest was baptising Jesus the final high priest.

b) Johns mode. Since John is a high priest he DID know all of the OT baptisms. Since NOT ONE of those baptisms are by dunking then John would have been an innovator, and subject to stoning for adding to the law of Moses (if he dunked). John was examined by a committee who found no fault with his practice. ERGO John was baptising in the prescribed OT
method.

c) Johns baptism was a named OT baptism that is described for us in the OT. And yes it did use Hysop! The baptism of repentance was a sin offering baptism. This baptism is water (mixed with blood or soot) sprinkled on the bringer of the sacrifice. re-read the levitical sin offering laws, then the synoptic accounts of Johns baptism, then read Mal ch 4, Ezk 36, and Is 40.

NB especially that John baptised with the Clean water of the messianic age, not the dirty water of the OT (mixed with blood & soot). Also see what offering John told those seeking forgivness of sins to bring, not lambs but repentance!

Re #3, This is an unproven assumption! I would argue that on the contrary, the NT speaks repeatedly about named (non-christian, or rather pre-christian) baptisms that are described (elsewhere) in exhaustive detail as by means of sprinkling. Since all scripture is to interpreted in light of other passages, then you have a very high burden of proof to meet if you want to challenge the *scriptural* mode of baptism.


----------



## Stephen

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hey:
> 
> Mayflower posted a rather detailed, and lenghty, thread that sought to prove that Immersion was the only way to define the Biblical words related to "Baptism." He has done a monumental job in advancing the cause of Sprinkling as the only Biblical means by which the Sacrament should be practiced.
> 
> Why? You may ask? Immersionists pay attention here.
> 
> Immersionists pride themselves on being "Biblical." They even have a joke they pass around about a Baptist going to a Presbyterian book table, and not being able to find a Bible on it. I think they make these jokes because there is no Biblical evidence of an Immersion ever taking place.
> 
> Their method of argumentation does not start and end with the Bible, but, like Mayflower has shown, they begin with lexicons, quotations from church fathers, pagan sources, and even paedo-baptists who all agree that the literal definition of "baptize" is to plunge, or immerse.
> 
> Consequently, they stand outside of the Bible, find a definition that suits their needs, then they thrust their definition into the Bible at every point they can find. I think Pilgrim's response to this was most appropriate:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So much for sola scriptura, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I was a Baptist, and I have prided myself about how "Biblical" my views are in light of the "Romish" paedo-baptists, then I would have been embarrassed by Mayflower's post, and repudiate him for his non-Biblical arguments.
> 
> In every argument the Immersionist makes he first turns to Greek scholars - both pagans and Christians - church historians, and paedo-baptists who acknowledge the literal definition of the word. They then take this literal definition of the word and apply it to every instance where "Baptism" is found.
> 
> If we take the Bible alone, then we find that there is no clear case of Immersion to be found in any of the passages where "Baptism" is referred. The Reformed view of defining a word in the Bible is seeing how the Bible uses it - not how Aristotle may have thought it meant.
> 
> The Immersionists has to take his "outside of the Bible" definition, and then cram it into a place where it doesn't belong.
> 
> How does the meaning "to dip" fit here:
> 
> *And when they come from the market, except they baptize they eat not. And many other things they have received to hold, as the baptizing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables, Mark 7:4.*
> 
> Are the Pharisees Immersing themselves every time before they eat? Do they immerse the cups and pots, brasen vessels as well? The washing of these things is more likely to have been done by pouring water upon it.
> 
> What is more remarkable are the tables. Do you honestly think that the Jews carried their tables to a lake or river and fully immersed them *every time before they ate?* Isn't it more likely that they sprinkled or poured water on the tables, and then washed them with a clean rag?
> 
> In these instances the "water" of baptism is being applied to the articles in question. The things are not being applied to the water. The Scriptural mode of Baptism is when the water is applied to the subject, not the subject to the water. This is not only proven here, but in all instances where Baptism occurs.
> 
> Buried with Him in Baptism?
> 
> After showing from their lexicons that Baptism can only be defined as "dipping" they turn to two passages in Scripture that seem to justify their definition, Rom. 6:4, Col. 2:12. It is on the strength of these two passages that Immersionists claim another argument for their views of Baptism. They say something to the effect:
> 
> "Baptism is commemorative of the Burial and Resurrection of Jesus."
> 
> Plunging the subject into the water is commemorative of the burial of Jesus, and pulling him/her out of his resurrection.
> 
> First, none of the Gospels mention that Jesus was literally buried. The only places where Jesus was said to be "buried" is the above two passages. This seems to indicate that Paul is not talking about a literal burial, but of a figurative one - our sins are buried by our union with Christ.
> 
> Second, Immersion is not at all similar to the "burial" of Christ. Jesus was wrapped in a linen cloth and laid in a tomb or sepulchre. They did not dig a six foot hole and "plunge" him in the earth, and then He rose again from the ground. Reading the Gospel accounts how can anyone think that Jesus was "plunged"?
> 
> Third, the burial of Jesus has nothing to do with His atoning work - it is His death. They could just as easily left his body hanging for three days, and He still would have been resurrected. Or, they could have placed His body in the Upper Room, and sealed it, and He still would have rose three days later. The mode of His burial has no theological significance whatsoever.
> 
> "Buried with him in Baptism" means that we are united to Christ through His death. Paul is using the word "buried" figuratively of the death of Christ. He is certainly not using the term literally meaning that the literal burial of Christ had something to do with our salvation. If such would be the case, then it was not the work of Christ alone that saves us, because it took the work of men to bury Christ (Joseph of Arimathaea and his servants, Mark 15:42-47).
> 
> Finally, we already have a rite that commemorates the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ - The Christian Sabbath.
> 
> The Baptism of Jesus and the Eunuch.
> 
> Jesus was Baptized by John in the river Jordan. In examing all of the records of Jesus' Baptism I fail to see the idea of an immersion. They refer to Jesus going "into" the water, and coming out of it.
> 
> But did not John go "into" the water as well. Yet, John was not baptized as well at the same time? One can go "into" the river Jordan, but not go "under" it. The words of Jesus tell us that He did not go "under" the water, but was sprinkled.
> 
> First, Jesus Christ - the Second Adam - the God/Man - did not need to be washed either ceremonially or spiritually of any uncleanness. John the Baptist acknowledged this when he tries to forbid Jesus Baptism, Mat. 3:14.
> 
> Second, Jesus Christ - the Great High Priest - the Messiah - the One who came to fulfill the Law in all righteousness - said He had to be Baptized as a means of fulfilling all righteousness. This can only mean that there is a law in the Old Testament that required the rite of Baptism on Priests.
> 
> Third, there is such a law found in Numbers 8:5-7:
> 
> *And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them. And thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean.*
> 
> It is clear that John did not Baptize Jesus by Immersion, but was following the Law and sprinkled Jesus according to it. What is also clear is that John saw the Holy Spirit "descending" upon Jesus afterward. Jesus was not "plunged into" the Holy Spirit.
> 
> Baptism does not commemorate the burial and resurrection of Jesus, but the "washing and renewing" of the Holy Spirit. It represents the Work of the Holy Spirit. And the Bible always represents the Spirit of God as "descending" or being "poured" upon men and women. Thus, "sprnkling" or "pouring" water upon the subject is the only Scriptural mode of Baptism.
> 
> As far as the Eunuch is concerned the Bible says that both the Ethiopian and Philip "went into the water," and that they both went up out of it. I think it very unlikely that Philip was Immersed with the Ethiopian.
> 
> That pouring or sprinkling are representative of the Work of the Holy Spirit I will leave that to my brother paedo-baptists to prove.
> 
> Using lexicons and quotations is not the same thing as using the Bible alone.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH
Click to expand...


If you want to get technical, Baptists do not practice immersion, they practice submersion. If you put the entire person under water that is not immersion, but submersion. If you dip them or put part of the body in water that is immersion. This may sound like semantics, but as a former anti-paedo-Baptist, I saw so much of this kind of nit-pickiness.


----------



## Stephen

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hey:
> 
> Mayflower posted a rather detailed, and lenghty, thread that sought to prove that Immersion was the only way to define the Biblical words related to "Baptism." He has done a monumental job in advancing the cause of Sprinkling as the only Biblical means by which the Sacrament should be practiced.
> 
> Why? You may ask? Immersionists pay attention here.
> 
> Immersionists pride themselves on being "Biblical." They even have a joke they pass around about a Baptist going to a Presbyterian book table, and not being able to find a Bible on it. I think they make these jokes because there is no Biblical evidence of an Immersion ever taking place.
> 
> Their method of argumentation does not start and end with the Bible, but, like Mayflower has shown, they begin with lexicons, quotations from church fathers, pagan sources, and even paedo-baptists who all agree that the literal definition of "baptize" is to plunge, or immerse.
> 
> Consequently, they stand outside of the Bible, find a definition that suits their needs, then they thrust their definition into the Bible at every point they can find. I think Pilgrim's response to this was most appropriate:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So much for sola scriptura, eh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I was a Baptist, and I have prided myself about how "Biblical" my views are in light of the "Romish" paedo-baptists, then I would have been embarrassed by Mayflower's post, and repudiate him for his non-Biblical arguments.
> 
> In every argument the Immersionist makes he first turns to Greek scholars - both pagans and Christians - church historians, and paedo-baptists who acknowledge the literal definition of the word. They then take this literal definition of the word and apply it to every instance where "Baptism" is found.
> 
> If we take the Bible alone, then we find that there is no clear case of Immersion to be found in any of the passages where "Baptism" is referred. The Reformed view of defining a word in the Bible is seeing how the Bible uses it - not how Aristotle may have thought it meant.
> 
> The Immersionists has to take his "outside of the Bible" definition, and then cram it into a place where it doesn't belong.
> 
> How does the meaning "to dip" fit here:
> 
> *And when they come from the market, except they baptize they eat not. And many other things they have received to hold, as the baptizing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables, Mark 7:4.*
> 
> Are the Pharisees Immersing themselves every time before they eat? Do they immerse the cups and pots, brasen vessels as well? The washing of these things is more likely to have been done by pouring water upon it.
> 
> What is more remarkable are the tables. Do you honestly think that the Jews carried their tables to a lake or river and fully immersed them *every time before they ate?* Isn't it more likely that they sprinkled or poured water on the tables, and then washed them with a clean rag?
> 
> In these instances the "water" of baptism is being applied to the articles in question. The things are not being applied to the water. The Scriptural mode of Baptism is when the water is applied to the subject, not the subject to the water. This is not only proven here, but in all instances where Baptism occurs.
> 
> Buried with Him in Baptism?
> 
> After showing from their lexicons that Baptism can only be defined as "dipping" they turn to two passages in Scripture that seem to justify their definition, Rom. 6:4, Col. 2:12. It is on the strength of these two passages that Immersionists claim another argument for their views of Baptism. They say something to the effect:
> 
> "Baptism is commemorative of the Burial and Resurrection of Jesus."
> 
> Plunging the subject into the water is commemorative of the burial of Jesus, and pulling him/her out of his resurrection.
> 
> First, none of the Gospels mention that Jesus was literally buried. The only places where Jesus was said to be "buried" is the above two passages. This seems to indicate that Paul is not talking about a literal burial, but of a figurative one - our sins are buried by our union with Christ.
> 
> Second, Immersion is not at all similar to the "burial" of Christ. Jesus was wrapped in a linen cloth and laid in a tomb or sepulchre. They did not dig a six foot hole and "plunge" him in the earth, and then He rose again from the ground. Reading the Gospel accounts how can anyone think that Jesus was "plunged"?
> 
> Third, the burial of Jesus has nothing to do with His atoning work - it is His death. They could just as easily left his body hanging for three days, and He still would have been resurrected. Or, they could have placed His body in the Upper Room, and sealed it, and He still would have rose three days later. The mode of His burial has no theological significance whatsoever.
> 
> "Buried with him in Baptism" means that we are united to Christ through His death. Paul is using the word "buried" figuratively of the death of Christ. He is certainly not using the term literally meaning that the literal burial of Christ had something to do with our salvation. If such would be the case, then it was not the work of Christ alone that saves us, because it took the work of men to bury Christ (Joseph of Arimathaea and his servants, Mark 15:42-47).
> 
> Finally, we already have a rite that commemorates the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ - The Christian Sabbath.
> 
> The Baptism of Jesus and the Eunuch.
> 
> Jesus was Baptized by John in the river Jordan. In examing all of the records of Jesus' Baptism I fail to see the idea of an immersion. They refer to Jesus going "into" the water, and coming out of it.
> 
> But did not John go "into" the water as well. Yet, John was not baptized as well at the same time? One can go "into" the river Jordan, but not go "under" it. The words of Jesus tell us that He did not go "under" the water, but was sprinkled.
> 
> First, Jesus Christ - the Second Adam - the God/Man - did not need to be washed either ceremonially or spiritually of any uncleanness. John the Baptist acknowledged this when he tries to forbid Jesus Baptism, Mat. 3:14.
> 
> Second, Jesus Christ - the Great High Priest - the Messiah - the One who came to fulfill the Law in all righteousness - said He had to be Baptized as a means of fulfilling all righteousness. This can only mean that there is a law in the Old Testament that required the rite of Baptism on Priests.
> 
> Third, there is such a law found in Numbers 8:5-7:
> 
> *And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them. And thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean.*
> 
> It is clear that John did not Baptize Jesus by Immersion, but was following the Law and sprinkled Jesus according to it. What is also clear is that John saw the Holy Spirit "descending" upon Jesus afterward. Jesus was not "plunged into" the Holy Spirit.
> 
> Baptism does not commemorate the burial and resurrection of Jesus, but the "washing and renewing" of the Holy Spirit. It represents the Work of the Holy Spirit. And the Bible always represents the Spirit of God as "descending" or being "poured" upon men and women. Thus, "sprnkling" or "pouring" water upon the subject is the only Scriptural mode of Baptism.
> 
> As far as the Eunuch is concerned the Bible says that both the Ethiopian and Philip "went into the water," and that they both went up out of it. I think it very unlikely that Philip was Immersed with the Ethiopian.
> 
> That pouring or sprinkling are representative of the Work of the Holy Spirit I will leave that to my brother paedo-baptists to prove.
> 
> Using lexicons and quotations is not the same thing as using the Bible alone.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH
Click to expand...


Thanks, brother for your well thought out position. This is the classic Presbyterian position on the mode of Baptism. The sprinkling or pouring of water does convey the outpouring of the Spirit. When the Scriptures state, they went down into the water, it indicates an incline down to a body of water, not the submersion of the candidate and the one administering the sacrament. How could you submerse 3000 souls in one day? Did they all submerse themselves?


----------



## Stephen

Kevin said:


> Grymir said:
> 
> 
> 
> O.K. I'm ready!! I finished planting a Mr. Lincoln rose, fresia's, and some zinnia's. My wife and I are cooking hamburgers and some freedom fries. Life is good today so far! Time to debate and discuss, which is what it says above. Which I like. It also says something about all others refrain, but I hope people will jump in with their two cents, because I like to hear good arguments and reasons for both side, no matter tough it sounds to liberals. (Oh why can't we just get along? They don't have any opinions worth taking seriously or fighting for.)
> 
> I have a few questions -
> 
> 1. What does O.T. ritual washing have to do with baptism?
> 
> 2. Jesus' baptism was not our baptism. His was to fulfill O.T. law. Jesus said that the Prophets and the law were untill John. (By the way, John dunked, not no hyssop)
> 
> 3. Since the N.T. does talk about dunking, why is this not the norm.
> 
> The sprinkling and pouring started with the church when the water was scarce and/or they were in hiding in the catacombs. In which case sprinkling/pouring would be O.K. and justified. So shouldn't immersion be the best, and sprinkling/pouring be allowed if a dunking place is not availiable.
> 
> Anyway, let the great conversation begin. - Grymir
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Re #1, Alot.
> a) The book of Hebrews (ch9) calls these OT "ritual washings" "'baptisms". Any theory of the mode of baptism that does not (at least) permit sprinkling is therefore contrary to the clear teaching of scripture and is out of bounds.
> 
> b) Since these rituals are called "baptisms" in the NT, and are described repeatedly in the OT as by way of sprinkling, then sprinkling should be our *default* way to read baptism when we see it in the text, absent some compelling reason to read it otherwise. Say as "dunking".
> 
> Re #2, two seperate issues, the baptism of Jesus & Johns (mode of) baptism.
> a) the baptism of Jesus was to keep the law (i.e. fulfill righteousness). Question what law was he fulfilling? Answer, one of the three (!) baptisms of the High Priest. The baptism with oil, is the holy Spirit as a dove. The baptism with blood of the sacrifice was himself on the cross. The baptism with water is, if not here by John, then NOT RECORDED IN THE NT!! Impossible! John as a high priest was baptising Jesus the final high priest.
> 
> b) Johns mode. Since John is a high priest he DID know all of the OT baptisms. Since NOT ONE of those baptisms are by dunking then John would have been an innovator, and subject to stoning for adding to the law of Moses (if he dunked). John was examined by a committee who found no fault with his practice. ERGO John was baptising in the prescribed OT
> method.
> 
> c) Johns baptism was a named OT baptism that is described for us in the OT. And yes it did use Hysop! The baptism of repentance was a sin offering baptism. This baptism is water (mixed with blood or soot) sprinkled on the bringer of the sacrifice. re-read the levitical sin offering laws, then the synoptic accounts of Johns baptism, then read Mal ch 4, Ezk 36, and Is 40.
> 
> NB especially that John baptised with the Clean water of the messianic age, not the dirty water of the OT (mixed with blood & soot). Also see what offering John told those seeking forgivness of sins to bring, not lambs but repentance!
> 
> Re #3, This is an unproven assumption! I would argue that on the contrary, the NT speaks repeatedly about named (non-christian, or rather pre-christian) baptisms that are described (elsewhere) in exhaustive detail as by means of sprinkling. Since all scripture is to interpreted in light of other passages, then you have a very high burden of proof to meet if you want to challenge the *scriptural* mode of baptism.
Click to expand...


Thanks, Kevin. These arguments for the mode of baptism, that Presbyterians believe, are often overlooked in this discussion. Unfortunetly even some in the PCA have abandoned the classic position for the "personal prefence of the candidate."


----------



## Grymir

Goodmorning y'all! Just a couple of quick things before I go into work. I'll catch up and answer follow-ups after work. (which could be late, I have to set up for a formal diner tomorrow).

Heb ch 9 doesn't say anything about baptism, only relating Jesus sacrifice to the whole OT Temple system.

The law that Jesus was fulfilling in His (John's) baptism wasn't any of the 'rituals' of the high priest, but his (John's) command to repent and be baptized. John wasn't a high priest, so he couldn't do them either. (If he was the high priest, why were the Pharisee's castigating him?)

I'm not saying that sprinkling isn't valid, esp if there isn't enough water. But I'm trying to grasp the connection to 'ritual washings'. Hence my theology behind it question. Because y'all are saying it's not in the Bible, when the Bible talks about going under the water, but it is sufficiently vague to allow sprinkling, if not enough water. It's the buried with him in baptism that's more clear than the ritual washing connection.

Thanks y'all for input - Grymir


----------



## Kevin

Grymir said:


> Goodmorning y'all! Just a couple of quick things before I go into work. I'll catch up and answer follow-ups after work. (which could be late, I have to set up for a formal diner tomorrow).
> 
> Heb ch 9 doesn't say anything about baptism, only relating Jesus sacrifice to the whole OT Temple system.
> 
> The law that Jesus was fulfilling in His (John's) baptism wasn't any of the 'rituals' of the high priest, but his (John's) command to repent and be baptized. John wasn't a high priest, so he couldn't do them either. (If he was the high priest, why were the Pharisee's castigating him?)
> 
> I'm not saying that sprinkling isn't valid, esp if there isn't enough water. But I'm trying to grasp the connection to 'ritual washings'. Hence my theology behind it question. Because y'all are saying it's not in the Bible, when the Bible talks about going under the water, but it is sufficiently vague to allow sprinkling, if not enough water. It's the buried with him in baptism that's more clear than the ritual washing connection.
> 
> Thanks y'all for input - Grymir



OK.

First re-read ch 9 of Hebrews. The chapter is about the old ordinences of the eathly sanctuary being replaced. In the AV it calles the baptisims "divers washings". Do a greek look up, the word is baptismos. The author then goes on & refers to several of these baptisims. From memory I can recall the baptism of the book & the people, a sin offering baptism, and I know there is at least one other.

Hebrews 9 is ALL ABOUT BAPTISM! Any Hebrew that read the letter would know that immediatly. We miss it because we don't know the Levitical law.

Second re-read the gospels on the baptism of John & the baptism of Jesus. John refused to give Jesus the "baptism of repentence". He relented when Jesus asked to be baptised for another reason, to fullfil the law (i.e. for righeousness sake).

Are you really saying that Jesus needed a "baptism of repentance"?!?! Of what sin was Jesus repenting? Think about what you are saying for a second.

Also please remember who Johns father was. And what he was doing when the angel appeared to him to anounce the coming birth of John?

A high priest is, at the same time, an annual office AND a class or order of priests. Zacharius, & John his son, are both hereditary high priests. At any given time there could be hundreds of living "high priests"(!), but only one was THE "high priest" at a time.

Most of your mis-understanding seems to come from a limited knowledge of the OT practices & procedures, In my humble opinion.


----------



## VictorBravo

CalvinandHodges said:


> Victorbravo: There is nothing wrong with a bias until someone, like Zadoc, tries to point one out on his opposition. As a VanTillian Presuppositionalist I have no problem with a bias. I am simply using Zadoc's own argument against himself. Since he seems it is an effective argument, then he should be able to swallow his own points.
> 
> Is that fair?



It just hit me that this may not have been a rhetorical question.

Of course it's fair.  My comment was somewhat gratuitous. What triggered it is a general tendency I've noticed for some to invoke bias as a primary argument. I wasn't attacking your point. 

Carry on.


----------



## Poimen

Kevin said:


> First re-read ch 9 of Hebrews. The chapter is about the old ordinences of the eathly sanctuary being replaced. In the AV it calles the baptisims "divers washings". Do a greek look up, the word is baptizo. The author then goes on & refers to several of these baptisims. From memory I can recall the baptism of the book & the people, a sin offering baptism, and I know there is at least one other.



To be fair, the Greek word is 'Baptismos' which is a noun, not a verb. That doesn't mean it is not related to 'Baptizo' (which is a verb) but I thought I should make that clarification.


----------



## Kevin

Thanks pastor Kok. I was trying to point out that washings=baptisings and wrote from memory. Mea culpa.


----------



## Kevin

To be fair (to myself) my point still stands.


----------



## Poimen

Kevin:

I agree. Hebrews 9 does tells us a lot about baptism if we get past our assumptions about what baptism is or has to be. And note the word 'baptismos' is also used in Hebrews 6:2 where the author tells us that the "doctrine of baptism" is one of the elementary principles of doctrine.


----------



## Grymir

Heb 6:2 is the possible link I've been asking for. I'm gonna do a little more looking and thinking. Which is what I want. Heb 6:2 could link Heb 9 to baptism. The Levities would be unfamiliar with the NT baptism, so the Heb 9 would not be obvious to them. It's about Jesus fulfilling all the Levitical system, so that His saving work is more than sufficient to us. But I want to think on the Heb6:2 passage, because the writer does say he's going on to the doctrine of baptism, which could play out in Heb 9.

quote - "Second re-read the gospels on the baptism of John & the baptism of Jesus. John refused to give Jesus the "baptism of repentance". He relented when Jesus asked to be baptized for another reason, to fulfill the law (i.e. for righteousness sake).

Are you really saying that Jesus needed a "baptism of repentance"?!?! Of what sin was Jesus repenting? Think about what you are saying for a second."

I have thought about this. John gave a new addition to the Law. Repent and be baptized. If Jesus did not do this, His sacrifice would not have been sufficient. Of course he didn't need it as that sentence frames it, but if it's commanded by the prophet (which is what John is, not a priest. The prophet presented God to the people. The Priest presented the people to God), then He had to do it. That's why Jesus baptism isn't a NT baptism. Which is something new. No comparison to 'ritual washings'. Which were not 'ritual' but actual cleansing. ie the sprinkling on the Bible, The People, (when this was done by Moses).

Anyway, I am going to think and consider the Heb 6:2. But it doesn't seem clear or related to baptism. As to my 'assumptions', well, that's not necessary. Research isn't the same as assumptions. I will go where the truth leads. That's why I ask many questions. And have gotten good answers. - Grymir


----------



## Kevin

Hey, Brother. Why do you insist that John is not a priest? 

Consider the facts; 

# 1) The only way to become a priest is to be born one. Check.
He is the son of a priest, and descended from Aaron (on his mothers side). 

# 2) Only a priest Can perform the OT Levitical ritual cleansings. Check.
Johns baptism passes the examination committee for technical accuracy according to the pharisaical purity commision.

# 3) A priest can be both a prophet and a priest. Check.
Remember Samuel? Thinks of other great prophets, many of whom performed the work of priest. If you think about it, the exceptions are few. But only one is need to prove the possibility & Samuel does that.


----------



## Grymir

Kevin. Because it's not in scripture. Him being a prophet is. Only the apointed High Priest could do the 'ritual' cleanings, and only after he had purified himself with the appointed sacrifices and such. That's why I have problems with it. 

I've a busy day, do it will be awhile before I can post. I'm not ignoring this. I'd like to ignore work today and spend my day with y'all, but bills must be paid!


----------



## aleksanderpolo

Back to the OP. Can CH or someone else list all the occurrence of the word "Baptismos" or "Baptizo" in the Bible, both NT and LXX? That could have settled the issue once and for all In my humble opinion.


----------



## Kevin

No offense intended brother, but I think the heart of the misunderstanding here is a misunderstanding of the OT priesthood, and the office of prophet.

A man would be born an Iraelite. That was his nationality, or race. 

He was also born into a tribe, Judah, Dan, etc. A member of these tribes could do whatever he had the talent and capital to do for a living. In practice sons would ordinarily follow their fathers footsteps.

To be a priest however you had to be born a priest. John was born a priest. No one asked him what he wanted to do for a living when he was a kid, it was a given. He would be a priest.

Now David in his liturgical reform divided the priests into 24 divisions, or courses. Only a qualified, properly trained, elected priest could be "acting High Priest" at a time. Many men however would be eligable for election to this office, including former high priests and other members of the proper division.

John was a member of this division, and had he right training, and had the right family tree.

As far as Johns exercising the office of prophet, this is (in my view) probably an office held most often by a priest. Even if it is not, tghe example of samuel proves that it can be.


----------



## greenbaggins

Here are the LXX occurrences (according to Hatch and Redpath) with the LXX and and English translation of the LXX: 

"*Bapto*"

Exodus 12:22 λήψεσθε δὲ δέσμην ὑσσώπου, καὶ βάψαντες ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ παρὰ τὴν θύραν καθίξετε τῆς φλιᾶς καὶ ἐπ᾿ ἀμφοτέρων τῶν σταθμῶν ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος, ὅ ἐστι παρὰ τὴν θύραν· ὑμεῖς δὲ οὐκ ἐξελεύσεσθε ἕκαστος τὴν θύραν τοῦ οἴκου αὐτοῦ ἕως πρωΐ.

English translation: And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and having dipped it into some of the blood that is by the door, ye shall touch the lintel, and shall put it upon both door-posts, even of the blood which is by the door; but ye shall not go out every one from the door of his house till the morning.

Leviticus 4:6 καὶ βάψει ὁ ἱερεὺς τὸν δάκτυλον εἰς τὸ αἷμα, καὶ προσρανεῖ ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος ἑπτάκις ἔναντι Κυρίου, κατὰ τὸ καταπέτασμα τὸ ἅγιον

English: And the priest shall dip his finger into the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord, over against the holy veil.

Leviticus 4:17 καὶ βάψει ὁ ἱερεὺς τὸν δάκτυλον ἀπὸ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ μόσχου καΙ ρανεῖ ἑπτάκις ἔναντι Κυρίου, κατενώπιον τοῦ καταπετάσματος τοῦ ἁγίου· 

English: And the priest shall dip his finger into some of the blood of the calf, and shall sprinkle it seven times before the Lord, in front of the veil of the sanctuary.

Leviticus 6:9 τὸ δὲ καταλειφθὲν ἀπ᾿ αὐτῆς ἔδεται ᾿Ααρὼν καὶ οἱ υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ· ἄζυμα βρωθήσεται ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ, ἐν αὐλῇ τῆς σκηνῆς τοῦ μαρτυρίου ἔδονται αὐτήν. 

English: And Aaron and his sons shall eat that which is left of it: it shall be eaten without leaven in a holy place, they shall eat it in the court of the tabernacle of witness.

Leviticus 11:32 καὶ πᾶν, ἐφ᾿ ὃ ἂν ἐπιπέσῃ ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν ἐπ᾿ αὐτὸ τεθνηκότων αὐτῶν, ἀκάθαρτον ἔσται ἀπὸ παντὸς σκεύους ξυλίνου ἢ ἱματίου ἢ δέρματος ἢ σάκκου· πᾶν σκεῦος, ὃ ἂν ποιηθῇ ἔργον ἐν αὐτῷ, εἰς ὕδωρ βαφήσεται καὶ ἀκάθαρτον ἔσται ἕως ἑσπέρας· καὶ καθαρὸν ἔσται. 

English: And on whatsoever one of their dead bodies shall fall it shall be unclean; whatever wooden vessel, or garment, or skin, or sack it may be, every vessel in which work should be done, shall be dipped in water, and shall be unclean till evening; and then it shall be clean.

Leviticus 14:6 καὶ τὸ ὀρνίθιον τὸ ζῶν λήψεται αὐτὸ καὶ τὸ ξύλον τὸ κέδρινον καὶ τὸ κλωστὸν κόκκινον καὶ τὸν ὕσσωπον, καὶ βάψει αὐτὰ καὶ τὸ ὀρνίθιον τὸ ζῶν εἰς τὸ αἷμα τοῦ ὀρνιθίου τοῦ σφαγέντος ἐφ᾿ ὕδατι ζῶντι·

English: And as for the living bird he shall take it, and the cedar wood, and the spun scarlet, and the hyssop, and he shall dip them and the living bird into the blood of the bird that was slain over running water.

Leviticus 14:16 καὶ βάψει τὸν δάκτυλον τὸν δεξιὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐλαίου τοῦ ὄντος ἐπὶ τῆς χειρὸς αὐτοῦ τῆς ἀριστερᾶς καὶ ρανεῖ τῷ δακτύλῳ ἑπτάκις ἔναντι Κυρίου· 

English: And he shall dip with the finger of his right hand into some of the oil that is in his left hand, and he shall sprinkle with his finger seven times before the Lord.

Leviticus 14:51 καὶ λήψεται τὸ ξύλον τὸ κέδρινον καὶ τὸ κεκλωσμένον κόκκινον καὶ τὸν ὕσσωπον καὶ τὸ ὀρνίθιον τὸ ζῶν, καὶ βάψει αὐτὸ εἰς τὸ αἷμα τοῦ ὀρνιθίου τοῦ ἐσφαγμένου ἐφ᾿ ὕδατι ζῶντι, καὶ περιρρανεῖ ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐπὶ τὴν οἰκίαν ἑπτάκις, 

English: And he shall take the cedar wood, and the spun scarlet, and the hyssop, and the living bird; and shall dip it into the blood of the bird slain over running water, and with them he shall sprinkle the house seven times.

Numbers 19:18 καὶ λήψεται ὕσσωπον καὶ βάψει εἰς τὸ ὕδωρ ἀνὴρ καθαρός, καὶ περιρρανεῖ ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ σκεύη καὶ ἐπὶ τὰς ψυχάς, ὅσαι ἂν ὦσιν ἐκεῖ, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἡμμένον τοῦ ὀστέου τοῦ ἀνθρωπίνου ἢ τοῦ τραυματίου ἢ τοῦ τεθνηκότος ἢ τοῦ μνήματος· 

English: And a clean man shall take hyssop, and dip it into the water, and sprinkle it upon the house, and the furniture, and all the souls that are therein, and upon him that touched the human bone, or the slain man, or the corpse, or the tomb.

Deuteronomy 33:24 καὶ τῷ ᾿Ασὴρ εἶπεν· εὐλογημένος ἀπὸ τέκνων ᾿Ασὴρ καὶ ἔσται δεκτὸς τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς αὐτοῦ. βάψει ἐν ἐλαίῳ τὸν πόδα αὐτοῦ· 

English: And to Aser he said, Aser is blessed with children; and he shall be acceptable to his brethren: he shall dip his foot in oil.

Joshua 3:15 ὡς δὲ εἰσεπορεύοντο οἱ ἱερεῖς οἱ αἴροντες τὴν κιβωτὸν τῆς διαθήκης ἐπὶ τὸν ᾿Ιορδάνην καὶ οἱ πόδες τῶν ἱερέων τῶν αἰρόντων τὴν κιβωτὸν τῆς διαθήκης Κυρίου ἐβάφησαν εἰς μέρος τοῦ ὕδατος τοῦ ᾿Ιορδάνου· ὁ δὲ ᾿Ιορδάνης ἐπληροῦτο καθ ὅλην τὴν κρηπίδα αὐτοῦ ὡσεὶ ἡμέραι θερισμοῦ πυρῶν· 

English: And when the priests that bore the ark of the covenant of the Lord entered upon Jordan, and the feet of the priests that bore the ark of the covenant of the Lord were dipped in part of the water of Jordan; (now Jordan overflowed all its banks about the time of wheat harvest:

Ruth 2:14 καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ Βοόζ· ἤδη ὥρα τοῦ φαγεῖν, πρόσελθε ὧδε καὶ φάγεσαι τῶν ἄρτων καὶ βάψεις τὸν ψωμόν σου ἐν τῷ ὄξει. καὶ ἐκάθισε Ροὺθ ἐκ πλαγίων τῶν θεριζόντων, καὶ ἐβούνισεν αὐτῇ Βοὸζ ἄλφιτον, καὶ ἔφαγε καὶ ἐνεπλήσθη καὶ κατέλιπε. 

English: And Booz said to her, Now it is time to eat; come hither, and thou shalt eat of the bread, and thou shalt dip thy morsel in the vinegar: and Ruth sat by the side of the reapers: and Booz handed her meal, and she ate, and was satisfied, and left.

1 Samuel 14:27 καὶ ᾿Ιωνάθαν οὐκ ἀκηκόει ἐν τῷ ὁρκίζειν τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ τὸν λαόν· καὶ ἐξέτεινε τὸ ἄκρον τοῦ σκήπτρου αὐτοῦ τοῦ ἐν τῇ χειρὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔβαψεν αὐτὸ εἰς τὸ κηρίον τοῦ μέλιτος καὶ ἐπέστρεψε τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ στόμα αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἀνέβλεψαν οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ. 

English: And Jonathan had not heard when his father adjured the people; and he reached forth the end of the staff that was in his hand, an dipped it into the honeycomb, and returned his hand to his mouth, and his eyes recovered their sight.

2 Kings 8:15 καὶ ἐγένετο τῇ ἐπαύριον, καὶ ἔλαβε τὸ μαχμὰ καὶ ἔβαψεν ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ περιέβαλεν ἐπὶ τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀπέθανε, καὶ ἐβασίλευσεν ᾿Αζαὴλ ἀντ᾿ αὐτοῦ. 

English: And it came to pass on the next day that he took a thick cloth, and dipped it in water, and put it on his face, and he died: and Azael reigned in his stead.

Job 9:31 ἱκανῶς ἐν ρύπῳ με ἔβαψας, ἐβδελύξατο δέ με ἡ στολή· 

English: thou hadst thoroughly plunged me in filth, and my garment had abhorred me.

Psalm 68:23 (67:24 in LXX) ὅπως ἂν βαφῇ ὁ πούς σου ἐν αἵματι, ἡ γλῶσσα τῶν κυνῶν σου ἐξ ἐχθρῶν παρ᾿ αὐτοῦ.

English: That thy foot may be dipped in blood, and the tongue of thy dogs be stained with that of thine enemies.

"*Baptizo*"

2 Kings 5:14 καὶ κατέβη Ναιμὰν καὶ ἐβαπτίσατο ἐν τῷ ᾿Ιορδάνῃ ἑπτάκις κατὰ τὸ ρῆμα ῾Ελισαιέ, καὶ ἐπέστρεψεν ἡ σάρξ αὐτοῦ ὡς σάρξ παιδαρίου μικροῦ, καὶ ἐκαθαρίσθη.

English: So Naiman went down, and dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the word of Elisaie: and his flesh returned to him as the flesh of a little child, and he was cleansed.

Judith 12:7 καὶ προσέταξεν ᾿Ολοφέρνης τοῖς σωματοφύλαξι μὴ διακωλύειν αὐτήν. καὶ παρέμεινεν ἐν τῇ παρεμβολῇ ἡμέρας τρεῖς, καὶ ἐξεπορεύετο κατὰ νύκτα εἰς τὴν φάραγγα Βαιτυλούα καὶ ἐβαπτίζετο ἐν τῇ παρεμβολῇ ἐπὶ τῆς πηγῆς τοῦ ὕδατος·

English: So Holofernes commanded his guards not to hinder her. She remained in the camp three days. She went out each night to the valley of Bethulia, and bathed at the spring in the camp.

Isaiah 21:4 ἡ καρδία μου πλανᾶται, καὶ ἡ ἀνομία με βαπτίζει, ἡ ψυχή μου ἐφέστηκεν εἰς φόβον.

English: My heart wanders, and transgression overwhelms me; my soul is occupied with fear.

"*Baptos*"

Ezekiel 23:15 ἐζωσμένους ποικίλματα ἐπὶ τὰς ὀσφύας αὐτῶν, καὶ τιάραι βαπταὶ ἐπὶ τῶν κεφαλῶν αὐτῶν, ὄψις τρισσὴ πάντων, ὁμοίωμα υἱῶν Χαλδαίων, γῆς πατρίδος αὐτῶν,

English: having variegated girdles on their loins, having also richly dyed attire upon their heads; all had a princely appearance, the likeness of the children of the Chaldeans, of their native land.


----------



## Pilgrim's Progeny

Grymir said:


> I think my post #28 got missed in the shuffle
> 
> I got this quote from the other thread - "It is often, but erroneously, supposed that the controversy between our baptist brethren and the rest of the Christian Church with respect to Baptism is a question of mode; they affirming that the only right mode is to immerse -- we affirming that the best mode is to sprinkle. This is a great mistake. The real Baptist position -- as stated by Dr. Alexander Carson (p. 55) -- is, that the command to baptize is a simple and single command to immerse, in order to symbolize the death, burial, and resurrection of the believer with Christ. The true position maintained by other Christians is, that Baptism is a simple and single command to wash with water, in order to symbolize the purification wrought by the Holy Ghost. Hence the mode of washing has nothing to do with it."
> 
> hmm... Is this what is behind the whole baptism debate (the theology behind it) or do people debate about the mode only, without the theology?



I think this is an issue, I recall hearing and saying it myself in Baptist churches, something like this. "I now baptize you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (submerse) buried with Christ in baptism (bring up out of water) raised to walk in newness of life by the power of His resurrection" No mention of the symbolism of the purification wrought by the Holy Spirit. Most baptists, if not all, do see it differently.


----------



## jpechin

Hi, guys,

Just browsing about, I found an interesting tidbit on Baptizo - Greek Lexicon, included with a lexical entry for the Greek word baptizo: 

to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk) 
to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe 
to overwhelm 

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 in order 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 baptising 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. 

From what I understand, the large use of this koine Greek word was in immersion, as stated above.

Also, most Christological images we have of baptism (e.g., buried and resurrected with Him) involve a 'covering' or 'immersing', not a sprinkling.

Also, the tradition of the mikvah is worth considering, if tradition is brought to bear at all.

HOWEVER, I'll not make jokes about paedobaptism. I understand the evidence from the scriptures - I simply don't agree with it as it is applied to the new covenantal paradigm.

(battery running low - I'll have to come back tomorrow)


----------



## CalvinandHodges

jpechin said:


> Hi, guys,
> 
> Just browsing about, I found an interesting tidbit on Baptizo - Greek Lexicon, included with a lexical entry for the Greek word baptizo:
> 
> to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
> to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
> to overwhelm
> 
> 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 in order 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 baptising 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.
> 
> From what I understand, the large use of this koine Greek word was in immersion, as stated above.
> 
> Also, most Christological images we have of baptism (e.g., buried and resurrected with Him) involve a 'covering' or 'immersing', not a sprinkling.
> 
> Also, the tradition of the mikvah is worth considering, if tradition is brought to bear at all.
> 
> HOWEVER, I'll not make jokes about paedobaptism. I understand the evidence from the scriptures - I simply don't agree with it as it is applied to the new covenantal paradigm.
> 
> (battery running low - I'll have to come back tomorrow)



Hay:

Thanks for your input. However, most of your arguments have been anticipated in the Original Post. Some of which are worthy to go over again.

You point out "buried with him in baptism," as illustrative of what Baptism is all about. The problem with using this as a proof-text for submersion into water becomes apparent when you consider the "burial" of Jesus.

Jesus was wrapped in a linen cloth and placed in a tomb or sepulchre. How does plunging a person in water correspond at all with the "burial" of Jesus? 

In modern times we think of "burial" the way Submersionists think of it - plunging someone into a hole in the ground. But, there is nothing in the gospels that even hints that this is how Jesus was "buried." The Submersionists view is a modern-day "interpretation" of the Scriptures that has no bearing on how Christ was "buried." The picture of "submersion" does not fit the reality of what happened to Christ.

Rev. Buchanan made an excellent point on another thread that addresses the "burial" argument well:



> Definitely, baptism is symbolic of cleansing: i.e the washing of regeneration, Tit 3:5, for example.
> 
> I would make this one adjustment to the other point: baptism is not only symbolical of "burial with Christ" but also with "Christ put on" (like clothing), Gal.3:27; and "drinking the Spirit" 1 Cor.12:13.
> 
> The doctrine in view in all these "identifications" is that of Union with Christ. Paul's use of the burial metaphor is due to its connection to what follows, namely the resurrection. For us to be united to Christ, we are in the first place united to his Death to Sin, so that we might be "raised to newness of life" in Christ (the Firstborn from the Dead, Col 1:18). Note once again, the emphasis on union. Baptism is symbolic of the beginning of our Christian identification, the beginning or our union with Christ.



And here,


> My point was, and continues to be, that for the immersionist to "lock in" on the Romans 6:4 and Colossians 2:12 texts--as if those two texts TAUGHT a mode by dint of an alleged "picture"--the same thing would have to be said concerning "wearing" and "drinking". Does the rite of baptism depict putting on clothes? Does it depict drinking? Why should we assume, then, that "burial" confirms some sort of picture? But clearly it must be symbolical of them all, and all at once.


I am glad to see that you are tentative about the "tradition" concerning the Mikvah. It does not apply for several reasons:

1) Circumcision was the Sign of the Everlasting Covenant that was given to Abraham, Gen. 17:13.

2) The ceremonial washings known as the "Mikvah" came under the Mosaic dispensation of which Jeremiah tells us passed away under the New Covenant, Jer. 31:32. Paul points out that it was the Levitical law that has been abolished in the New Covenant not the Moral Law, Heb. 8:7-10:18.

3) The Hebrew word for these ceremonial washings is _rawchats_ (Strongs 7364) and is translated in the LXX as _louo_ (Strongs 3068) which is the literal translation, "to bathe." These were not considered "baptisms."

What now do you have left? Various definitions of the word "baptism" from pagan sources? Hmmmmm.

Grace and Peace,

-CH


----------



## R Harris

*What about Paul's Baptism?*

Sorry, didn't want to wade through all of the technicalities in this thread, but why has someone not mentioned the baptism of Paul?

While we can talk about 'baptizo' until we are blue in the face (and James Dale did over 140 years ago in his three volume set on Baptizo, of which the third volume, Johannine Baptism, is probably the most convincing volume), but an examination of the actual baptismal events, especially Paul's, are most enlightening.

Look at the context of Paul's baptism in Acts 9. In verses 8-9, he is three days without food, water, or sight.

In verses 10-16, the Lord tells Ananias to go to the house of Judas and lay his hands on Paul.

In verse 17, and this is key, Ananias enters the HOUSE. He lays his hands on Paul, he receives his sight, and Paul STOOD UP and was immediately baptized.

Questions for immersionists:

1. Since when did the houses in AD 33 in Damascus (located in a desert region) have baptistries in them? Where would a large enough body of water exist in the home to allow Paul to be baptized? This was not a governor's mansion, where a possible indoor pool might have existed. So, they probably had a small or large vase of water, from which the water was extracted to baptize Paul.

2. Paul took food and water and was strengthened, _after the baptism_.
Before that, he STOOD UP, and was baptized (verse 18). How could this have been an immersion? Paul was in no condition to go out and find a river to be baptized in because of his weakness.

Again, this is a difficult passage by which to demonstrate an immersion. Obviously, sprinkling or pouring would not be a problem here, but I have yet to hear an adequate explanation from the immersionist position.


----------



## Herald

R Harris said:


> Sorry, didn't want to wade through all of the technicalities in this thread, but why has someone not mentioned the baptism of Paul?
> 
> While we can talk about 'baptizo' until we are blue in the face (and James Dale did over 140 years ago in his three volume set on Baptizo, of which the third volume, Johannine Baptism, is probably the most convincing volume), but an examination of the actual baptismal events, especially Paul's, are most enlightening.
> 
> Look at the context of Paul's baptism in Acts 9. In verses 8-9, he is three days without food, water, or sight.
> 
> In verses 10-16, the Lord tells Ananias to go to the house of Judas and lay his hands on Paul.
> 
> In verse 17, and this is key, Ananias enters the HOUSE. He lays his hands on Paul, he receives his sight, and Paul STOOD UP and was immediately baptized.
> 
> Questions for immersionists:
> 
> 1. Since when did the houses in AD 33 in Damascus (located in a desert region) have baptistries in them? Where would a large enough body of water exist in the home to allow Paul to be baptized? This was not a governor's mansion, where a possible indoor pool might have existed. So, they probably had a small or large vase of water, from which the water was extracted to baptize Paul.
> 
> 2. Paul took food and water and was strengthened, _after the baptism_.
> Before that, he STOOD UP, and was baptized (verse 18). How could this have been an immersion? Paul was in no condition to go out and find a river to be baptized in because of his weakness.
> 
> Again, this is a difficult passage by which to demonstrate an immersion. Obviously, sprinkling or pouring would not be a problem here, but I have yet to hear an adequate explanation from the immersionist position.



Randy,

Let me quote the passage in question.



> Acts 9:18-19 8 And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized; 19 and he took food and was strengthened. Now for several days he was with the disciples who were at Damascus,


The immediacy of his baptism is not addressed. Was it thirty seconds after he regained his sight? Five minutes? Thirty minutes? The time is not specified. Baptisms were performed in natural bodies of water (c.f. Acts 8:38 & Matthew 3:6). I am sure Damascus had such bodies of water.



> Paul was in no condition to go out and find a river to be baptized in because of his weakness.


That is sheer conjecture. Nowhere are we told that Paul lacked the energy to walk. Who knows what he was capable of in the power of the Holy Spirit at that moment. 



> I have yet to hear an adequate explanation from the immersionist position


Could it be that your presupposition is so strong that you can't possibly listen to anything else?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

he he he he

I think he's baiting you, Bill. "Stood up."

You could say something back, like "They went DOWN, DOWN, DOWN into the water! Acts 8:38, proof of immersion!"


----------



## Herald

Bruce,

Nah. Too predictable.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

*Circumstantial evidence*

Hi:

Randy:

An excellent point on the Baptism of Paul. I noticed that you have been accused of "conjecture," but the accuser's response was just as full of "conjecture" as he accuses you. The argument is not about "conjecture" though, it is about circumstantial evidence.

In Law, if the circumstantial evidence is strong enough - it can convict a man of wrongdoing. Circumstantial evidence is differentiated from direct evidence. For example, if I saw a man walk into a house, and then I heard a scream, and then I saw him leave with a bloody knife, then my testimony would be circumstantial in nature. However, if I peeked in the window and saw him stab his wife with the knife, then that would be direct evidence.

The circumstantial evidence of Paul's baptism, as you have pointed out, sides with the idea that he was sprinkled rather than immersed. I hope you don't mind if I summarize your points?

1) Paul was resting in a house.

2) Paul was without food, water, or sight for three days.

3) Ananias lays his hands on Paul, and Paul stood up, and was baptized.

Now, if we *assume* the literal definition of "baptism," then we must *assume* that Paul was fully immersed. But, those who hold to submersion as the means of baptism have not proved their point. If "baptism" means "submersion," then we do not find it here in the baptism of Paul. All we are told is that he was baptized after he stood up.

The only action of Paul mentioned in this narrative is that Paul stood up. It does not say that he then walked out of the house, went down to a river, lake or baptistry, and then he was baptized. Certainly, it would be natural for Luke to have said something like this:

"Paul stood up, and walked out of the house, and he was baptized."

Why would Luke only mention that Paul stood up? If Luke is going to mention Paul's actions after he received his eyesight, then would it not have been reasonable to mention that Paul left the house in order to be baptized? That Paul was "strengthened" after he ate the meal does not jive with those who claim that he was supernaturally strengthened to go down to a lake to be submerged.

After three days without food or water the narrative suggests that all that Paul could do was stand up. The circumstantial evidence indicates that Paul was baptized while he was standing in the room. It was only after he received food that he was strengthened and could go about the business that the Lord required of him.

So, which is more likely based on the circumstantial evidence?

1) That Paul walked out of the house, went down to a river or lake, and was submerged by Ananias?

Or,

2) That Paul stood up, was baptized by sprinkling or pouring by Ananias, and then received food that was available in the house?

That the narrative does not mention any further action by Paul after he stood up is strong circumstantial evidence that Paul was baptized in the house. Yet, this is not the only example, when we look at all of the Baptizms in the New Testament the circumstantial evidence sides with the idea of sprinkling/pouring rather than submersion.

1) The 3,000 people baptized at Pentecost.

2) The Baptism of Cornelius, and his household.

3) The Baptism of the jailor, and his household.

4) John the Baptist baptisms.

The large amount of circumstantial evidence alone is enough to prove that Baptism is rightly administered by sprinkling/pouring rather than submersion.

Thanks again for pointing out Paul's baptism,

-CH


----------



## shackleton

The thing I found interesting in my recent study of baptism and my readings all along was the emphasis by the reformers on the fact that mode was unimportant. I thought it was all about the fact that water was applied and it had more to do with what God promised to do and about a covenant and promise than a strict adherence to a certain mode. 

Calvin's Institutes Vol. 4 section on Baptism under section 19 "Erroneous and Correct Baptismal Usage. 
"_But whether the person being baptized should be wholly immersed, and
whether thrice or once, whether he should only be sprinkled with poured
water —these details are of no importance, but ought to be optional to churches according to the diversity of countries. Yet the word “baptize”means to immerse, and it is clear that the rite of immersion was observedin the ancient church_"

WCF under Baptism 28:3 "28:3 Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary: but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person (Mark 7:4; Acts 2:41; 16:33; Heb 9:10, 19-22)."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

shackleton said:


> The thing I found interesting in my recent study of baptism and my readings all along was the emphasis by the reformers on the fact that mode was unimportant. I thought it was all about the fact that water was applied and it had more to do with what God promised to do and about a covenant and promise than a strict adherence to a certain mode.
> 
> Calvin's Institutes Vol. 4 section on Baptism under section 19 "Erroneous and Correct Baptismal Usage.
> "_But whether the person being baptized should be wholly immersed, and
> whether thrice or once, whether he should only be sprinkled with poured
> water —these details are of no importance, but ought to be optional to churches according to the diversity of countries. Yet the word “baptize”means to immerse, and it is clear that the rite of immersion was observedin the ancient church_"
> 
> WCF under Baptism 28:3 "28:3 Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary: but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person (Mark 7:4; Acts 2:41; 16:33; Heb 9:10, 19-22)."



Right.

What I find ironic about most Baptists is that they tend to be pretty "loosy goosey" about a lot of strictures in other areas of doctrine that I would find to be pretty important but then, in the externals, they become very concerned where the Scriptures are generally silent by comparison.

Obviously many of the Baptists here are the exception (though not all) but there's still this strange obsession with mode that is historically ingrained. One of my biggest suspicions of Baptist theology, in fact, is how much doctrine they derive from historical narratives and word etymologies that are, at best, tenuous and are never discussed as didactic principles in any of the Epistles. Just one reference by an Apostle insisting this is so utterly important to the practice might be nice.


----------



## VictorBravo

shackleton said:


> Calvin's Institutes Vol. 4 section on Baptism under section 19 "Erroneous and Correct Baptismal Usage.
> "_But whether the person being baptized should be wholly immersed, and
> whether thrice or once, whether he should only be sprinkled with poured
> water —these details are of no importance, but ought to be optional to churches according to the diversity of countries. Yet the word “baptize”means to immerse, and it is clear that the rite of immersion was observedin the ancient church_"



Heh, as I said way back on this thread, mode wasn't a hot button for me. I was thinking of this very quote when I wrote that.


----------



## Herald

Rich, while I consider myself one of the Baptist exceptions you mentioned (regarding scripture), I believe mode is important. I look to scriptural support: Matt. 3:16, John 3:22-23, Acts 8:36, Col. 2:12 (spiritual reality/immersion language). Now, how important is it? Not so important as to nullify a baptism. God is greater than our errors. But I believe the bible points towards immersion just as you probably believe there is scriptural support for sprinkling. Therefore, if I am going to practice baptism I am going to do so, in good conscience, in the method I believe to be scriptural. Am I swayed by those Baptists who gave their life for mode? No. I think mode is part of the complete package of baptism but it's not an issue I would fall on my sword over; _literally!_


----------



## CalvinandHodges

*What does the Bible say?*

Hi:

The question is not what the Reformers believed (for as men they can err), but what does the Bible teach? The submersionists have yet to prove that their position is *Biblical*. If all that they can produce is a literal definition of "Baptism" as meaning "to dip," then they have not proven their case from the Scriptures. Calvin echos their arguments, but he provides no Scriptural support for their points:

_Yet the word “baptize”means to immerse, and it is clear that the rite of immersion was observed in the ancient church_,IV.XV.19

Now, as I understand it, submersion may be a valid form of baptism, but it is not Scriptural. I believe that is what the WCF is driving at when it says that immersion "is not necessary." Baptism relys on the Work of the Spirit working with the Word of Institution. If a Calvinistic Baptist were to convert to Paedo-Baptism I would not re-baptize him as long as the Word of Institution was correctly used in his Credo-Baptism.

Again, if the Bible teaches only one mode of Baptism, then to make the claim that mode is immaterial - even if it is Calvin so stating - is to go beyond the bounds of the Scriptures. Our conscience should be bound by the Bible - not the opinions of Godly men.

Respectfully submitted,

-CH


----------



## Herald

> The submersionists have yet to prove that their position is *Biblical*.



Robert, I believe we have, it's just that you don't agree. That's fine. We just...well...disagree.


----------



## Herald

Come to think of it, there are times when disagreement is fine. We have a tendency to want to find a definitive answer to each and every point of doctrine. That's why it's so hard to disengage from a debate and just admit that we don't agree. It doesn't mean we can't revisit the debate at a later date, but in the now it may just be time to hang up the spikes and allow what was said to incubate.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi Bill:

If all that they can produce is a literal definition of "Baptism" as meaning "to dip," then they have not proven their case from the Scriptures.

Where have they shown that the *Bible* teaches submersion? I must have missed it.

Grace,

-CH


----------



## Herald

Robert,

I don't know about "they", meaning this thread. I know I have given scriptural support for immersion a few posts prior and in other threads. But what it really comes down to is perspective. You genuinely believe the immersionist has not proven his point scripturally. I believe it has been proven, although not exclusively in this thread. I'm quite content with the disconnect.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Bill:

Citing a few passages in Scripture is not proof of your position. Why, the Jehovah Witnesses do the same thing - there is only One God - they claim, and then they cite passages in Scripture to prove their point.

That Jesus saw the Holy Spirit descend upon Him like a dove is not in dispute. The problem comes when John the Baptist testifies that he saw the Spirit descend upon Jesus like a dove - when he was supposedly busy baptizing Jesus.

Can you explain the mechanics, from a submerisionist view, how, when Jesus is "coming up out of the waters," John the Baptist could observe the heavens open and the Spirit descend upon Jesus like a dove?

_And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him,_ John 1:32ff.

If John the Baptist is going to baptize a huge crowd, then would it not be wise to go to a place where "there is much water"? John 3:23. It does not follow that John immersed. The fact is the Scriptures say differently:



> Numbers 8:5-7: And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Take the Levites from among the children of Israel, and cleanse them. And thus shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of purifying upon them, and let them shave all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and so make themselves clean.



In the baptism of the Ethiopian did both Philip and the Ethiopian "go down into the water, and come back up"?



> And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and *they went down both* into the water, *both Philip and the eunuch*; and he baptized him. And when *they were come up out of the water*,


 Acts 8:38ff.

I have never seen an immersion where *both* the administrator of baptism and the one being baptized are *both *submerged!

And then you cite the famous burial passage of Col. 2:12. How does immersion picture the burial of Jesus Christ? The Gospels do not record Jesus being plunged into the earth, but he was wrapped in a linen cloth and placed in a tomb. "Buried with him in baptism" does not mean the same thing as immersed in the earth.

Certainly, you can believe whatever you like, but that freedom is extended to the Jehovah Witnesses as well.

Grace,

-CH


----------

