# Baptizo doesn't mean immerse?



## blhowes

I had always been taught the following about the word baptizo: (this quote is taken from http://www.born-again-christian.info/water.baptism.htm)
[quote:365501e452]
A Greek recipe for making pickled vegetables written around 200 BC uses the term 'bapto' to describe the dipping or blanching of the vegetable in boiling water, to prepare it for the next stage of pickling, for which the word 'baptizo' is used, meaning totally immersing the vegetable in vinegar. 'Bapto' means a quick dip, 'baptizo' means immersing, 'baptising', to produce a pickle. If they are not baptised ('baptizo') they are not pickled.

So the candidate must be totally immersed in water in order to obey Christ's plain word. Splashing, sprinkling, pouring, washing and dabbing are NOT baptism. The Holy Spirit makes plain the symbolism of water-baptism in describing the actual born again baptism that occurs prior to water-baptism, when the sinner is born again;

Don't you know that all of us who were baptised into Christ Jesus were baptised into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. Ro. 6:3-4[/quote:365501e452]

Recently, I read an article about circumcision, and one of the footnotes reads:
[quote:365501e452]1. These would include, but not be limited to: John Murray, Christian Baptism (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing); works by Gabriel Marcel, Francis Schaeffer; John P. Sartelle, What Christians Parents Should Know about Infant Baptism; O. Palmer Robertson, Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing); and the treatments contained in standard systematic theologies such as Reymond, Berkhof, C. Hodge, etc. This presentation is intended to supplement those. In those works you will find answers to many questions you might have. [b:365501e452]For example, you will find exegetical data to show the error of equating the Greek baptizo with 'immerse'[/b:365501e452][/quote:365501e452]
I was wondering if somebody could recommend which of these guys (or somebody else) gives the best explanation of why its an error to equate the word baptizo with immerse? (preferably an online source)?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I can't give you on-line info, but here's a couple things:

Jay Adams' little booklet (probably still can get it from P&R, or maybe Timeless Texts) "The Meaning and Mode of Baptism" has a bit on the meaning of the word in its biblical context. This booklet is highly readable, aimed at the man in the pew.

But what may be most helpful in this context is the brief definitional excerpt he takes from the conclusion of volume one of [i:22c2853dd1]the definitive work[/i:22c2853dd1] on baptism, R.W. Dale's massive work-of-exhaustion, written in the 19th century, recently republished by P&R (a joint venture). 

Dale's work is possibly the most thorough survey of a single word in Greek ever attempted, much less accomplished. Vol. 1 is called "Classic Baptism," and surveyed the entire corpus of ancient Greek literature for its use of the term 'baptizo'. He followed up this massive work with FOUR MORE volumes dealing with Christic baptism & Patristic baptism (reprint two vols in one), Judaic baptism and Johannine baptism. 

Baptizo dosn't "mean" immerse. It's meaning covers a semantic range that can only be determined by its context.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Bruce writes:
[quote:925d98d868]Baptizo dosn't "mean" immerse. It's meaning covers a semantic range that can only be determined by its context.[/quote:925d98d868]
I agree Bruce


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

Sometimes I wish he was known as John the Presbyterian -- wouldn't that end the debate??!!


----------



## Ianterrell

Andrew...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

:bs2:


----------



## cupotea

Bapto [i:9f267f2824]can[/i:9f267f2824] mean 'immerse' but in a few instances it just means 'wash', again, context dictates.


----------



## blhowes

Thank-you for your responses.

In looking into it a little bit, I found this excerpt by Louis Berkhof from http://www.all-of-grace.org/pub/others/berkhof_bapt.html, which seems to be the general consensus so far in the thread:
[quote:d4e2bd01a7]2. IS IMMERSION THE ONLY PROPER MODE OF BAPTISM? The generally prevailing opinion outside of Baptist circles is that, as long as the fundamental idea, namely, that of purification, finds expression in the rite, the mode of baptism is quite immaterial. It may be administered by immersion, by pouring or effusion, or by sprinkling.[/quote:d4e2bd01a7]

I was wondering:
1. In another thread, the question was asked whether Presbyterians ever saw or performed baptism by immersion. I was wondering how strongly reformed baptists feel about immersion being the correct mode of baptism - Would they baptize somebody by sprinkling or pouring if that were the person's wishes?

2. The Westminster Confession says "[i:d4e2bd01a7]III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person.[/i:d4e2bd01a7]
Was this just a reaction to baptists at the time who said that immersion was the only valid mode for baptism? Did the Westminster divines believe that pouring or sprinkling was more biblically correct than immersion? (contrary to what Berkhof seems to be saying that all methods are valid)


----------



## pastorway

While our church will accept as members those baptised by another mode, we will not administer with a mode other than immersion. The timing of the ordinance is more important than the mode.

The issue for us is that it be believers baptism. Some do practice believers baptism by sprinkling or pouring, and we would not ask a person who had been poured or sprinkled to submit to being immersed to join our church, but if they later came to us with the conviction that they had not been properly baptized then we would gladly immerse them at that time!

And, according to "[i:326441e36c]A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature - a translation and adaption of the fourth revised and augmented edition of Walter Bauer's Griechisch-Deutsches Worterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der ubrign urchristlichen Literatur - by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, Second Edition[/i:326441e36c] (known as the BAGD) the koine Greek word and several of its forms means literally, "to baptize, of Jewish ritual washings; a Christian baptism; washing or dipping; to be dipped into something. Examples include washing dishes or dying a garment by baptising them into water or dye.

Yes, dear, I'm coming. I'll help you sprinkle the dishes tonight! You sprinkle, I'll dry.......

Phillip


----------



## cupotea

Interestingly enough, the first Anabaptists practiced affusion.


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:b99388baaf="pastorway"]While our church will accept as members those baptised by another mode, we will not administer with a mode other than immersion. The timing of the ordinance is more important than the mode.

The issue for us is that it be believers baptism. Some do practice believers baptism by sprinkling or pouring, and we would not ask a person who had been poured or sprinkled to submit to being immersed to join our church, but if they later came to us with the conviction that they had not been properly baptized then we would gladly immerse them at that time!

And, according to "[i:b99388baaf]A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature - a translation and adaption of the fourth revised and augmented edition of Walter Bauer's Griechisch-Deutsches Worterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments und der ubrign urchristlichen Literatur - by William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, Second Edition[/i:b99388baaf] (known as the BAGD) the koine Greek word and several of its forms means literally, "to baptize, of Jewish ritual washings; a Christian baptism; washing or dipping; to be dipped into something. Examples include washing dishes or dying a garment by baptising them into water or dye.

Yes, dear, I'm coming. I'll help you sprinkle the dishes tonight! You sprinkle, I'll dry.......

Phillip[/quote:b99388baaf]

Don't forget to immerse the couch...


----------



## daveb

[quote:d4b6e6a0fa="blhowes"]Thank-you for your responses.

I was wondering:
1. In another thread, the question was asked whether Presbyterians ever saw or performed baptism by immersion. I was wondering how strongly reformed baptists feel about immersion being the correct mode of baptism - Would they baptize somebody by sprinkling or pouring if that were the person's wishes?
[/quote:d4b6e6a0fa]

My personal take on it is that the mode itself isn't that important. I believe that immersion or sprinkling are equally as valid, although I believe that immersion might have been the preferred mode (historically). 

However, I think most Baptists would be more particular than I am on the mode.


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:67d2716fa2="daveb"][quote:67d2716fa2="blhowes"]Thank-you for your responses.

I was wondering:
1. In another thread, the question was asked whether Presbyterians ever saw or performed baptism by immersion. I was wondering how strongly reformed baptists feel about immersion being the correct mode of baptism - Would they baptize somebody by sprinkling or pouring if that were the person's wishes?
[/quote:67d2716fa2]

My personal take on it is that the mode itself isn't that important. I believe that immersion or sprinkling are equally as valid, although I believe that immersion might have been the preferred mode (historically). 

However, I think most Baptists would be more particular than I am on the mode.[/quote:67d2716fa2]

Most baptists consider anyone who was not immersed unbaptized, unable to joing a church, and in rebellion against God.

To his credit (and Biblicity) Phillip has never taken that position.


----------



## JohnV

In my background the important thing has always been not the mode, but the number of times. Once, and no more! Otherwise it would constitute a denial of baptism. So a second baptism is a denial of baptism altogether, what is stands for, and not just a denial of the first one. I recall people getting put out of the church over this, being baptized again. 

So for me the meaning of the word does not centre around immersion or sprinkling, but over its spiritual significance. It seems that there is a great deal of difference between Baptists and Presbyterians on that issue. We see it in quite different ways. For myself, I don't see how a case for the meaning of [i:df93716273]baptizo[/i:df93716273] to be immersion amounts to an argument for mode. If the mode was important, then the Bible would have made it clear, or left us with a direct inference. The fact that it would mean "immersion" every time it is used is not strictly a direct inference, as it does not rule out any other use of the term all by itself. 

But that's me, with my staid Dutch Reformed background for you.


----------



## blhowes

[quote:189bfd6cb6="pastorway"]While our church will accept as members those baptised by another mode, we will not administer with a mode other than immersion. [/quote:189bfd6cb6]
That seems to be a good, balanced stand to take. 

[quote:189bfd6cb6="pastorway"]
The timing of the ordinance is more important than the mode.

The issue for us is that it be believers baptism. Some do practice believers baptism by sprinkling or pouring, and we would not ask a person who had been poured or sprinkled to submit to being immersed to join our church, but if they later came to us with the conviction that they had not been properly baptized then we would gladly immerse them at that time![/quote:189bfd6cb6]
I'm a little curious what words are actually spoken by a baptist preacher who sprinkles or pours water onto a new convert. With immersion services, I've always heard Romans 6:4 used after the 'trinitarian formula' is said as the person is brought into and then out of the water. What you see seems to go hand-in-hand with the Romans passage - not so if the person is sprinkled. I suppose they would just say the 'trinitarian formula' and end there.

BTW, those you mentioned that practice baptism by sprinkling or pouring, is that their preferred way to baptize, or is that to accommodate those who don't want (for whatever reason) to be immersed?

[quote:189bfd6cb6="pastorway"]
Yes, dear, I'm coming. I'll help you sprinkle the dishes tonight! You sprinkle, I'll dry.......
Phillip[/quote:189bfd6cb6]


----------



## blhowes

[quote:9f27d0fc9e="VirginiaHuguenot"]Sometimes I wish he was known as John the Presbyterian -- wouldn't that end the debate??!![/quote:9f27d0fc9e]
I know what you mean. Or, depending on your point of view, "John the Immerser in water of believers upon a credible profession of faith and their believing children".

I guess its good its not spelled out either way 'cause it forces us to dig into the scriptures. Besides, if it were spelled out, what would we argue about?


----------



## blhowes

[quote:a1bbaa8da7="Steadfast"]Interestingly enough, the first Anabaptists practiced affusion.[/quote:a1bbaa8da7]I don't have my dictionary handy. What's affusion?


----------



## blhowes

[quote:0166112f57="JohnV"]In my background the important thing has always been not the mode, but the number of times. Once, and no more! Otherwise it would constitute a denial of baptism. So a second baptism is a denial of baptism altogether, what is stands for, and not just a denial of the first one. [/quote:0166112f57]
I wonder if that's why others who shared your view historically were so angry with the anabaptists who stressed rebaptism after a person believed. It wasn't so much when a person was baptized or the mode of baptism, but a denial of what baptism itself stands for.

[quote:0166112f57="JohnV"]
So for me the meaning of the word does not centre around immersion or sprinkling, but over its spiritual significance. It seems that there is a great deal of difference between Baptists and Presbyterians on that issue. We see it in quite different ways. [/quote:0166112f57]
With all the differences, its pretty amazing that there's any common ground for discussion. Well, one thing that we can agree on is that water is water

uzzled: ...do Presbyterians use tap water, distilled water, or lake water? 

[quote:0166112f57="JohnV"]
But that's me, with my staid Dutch Reformed background for you.[/quote:0166112f57]
Say no more, John.


----------



## daveb

[quote:c30983c113="blhowes"][quote:c30983c113="Steadfast"]Interestingly enough, the first Anabaptists practiced affusion.[/quote:c30983c113]I don't have my dictionary handy. What's affusion?[/quote:c30983c113]

Affusion is pouring water on the person when they are baptized.


----------



## daveb

[quote:3e5e8f8203="fredtgreco"]
Most baptists consider anyone who was not immersed unbaptized, unable to joing a church, and in rebellion against God.
[/quote:3e5e8f8203]

Wow, I did not know most baptists believed this. I find it amazing that people would take such a hard stance on mode. In any case, there's certainly no biblical warrant for doing so.


----------



## tcalbrecht

[quote:017e3d03b8="blhowes"]I had always been taught the following about the word baptizo: (this quote is taken from http://www.born-again-christian.info/water.baptism.htm)
[quote:017e3d03b8]
'Bapto' means a quick dip, 'baptizo' means immersing, 'baptising', to produce a pickle. If they are not baptised ('baptizo') they are not pickled.

[/quote:017e3d03b8]

[/quote:017e3d03b8]

So according to this ancient usage (assuming it's accurate), modern Baptists don't really "baptizo" they only "bapto", perform a "quick dip".


----------



## blhowes

[quote:2decdc6334="tcalbrecht"]
So according to this ancient usage (assuming it's accurate), modern Baptists don't really "baptizo" they only "bapto", perform a "quick dip".[/quote:2decdc6334]
That sounds accurate, depending of course on the relative sizes of the pastor and the person being baptized. With children, its definitely a "quick dip", with regular-sized people its a "somewhat quick dip", and with those who are much larger/heavier than the pastor, its more of a "dunk-and-hope-he-comes-back-up dip".


----------



## VanVos

I think the fact that John baptize people in the river near Salim suggest that it was by immersion, why else would he look for a place where the was much water?(John 20:23)

VanVos


----------



## JohnV

[quote:d3218b0c6e="Bob"]do Presbyterians use tap water, distilled water, or lake water?[/quote:d3218b0c6e]

This Presbyterian was once responsible for supplying the water for batism. What we do is sneak into the local Baptist Church at night, in the middle of the week, via the back door while about three men and twelve ladies are at prayer meeting, and hide until they are all gone. Then we take a Tupperware drinking bottle (or Rubbermaid tub) and dip into their batism pond. We take it home until Sunday morning, keeping it in the Fridge until then, and then boil it in the church kitchen at about ten minutes before the service starts. If the minister likes to do baptisms early in the service we do it sooner than that. By the time the baptism takes place, not only is it holy water, but it is tepid too. 

The local Baptist pastor is totally aware of this at all times, and has even offered me the key. But he did this only tongue in cheek, knowing that that would blow the whole thing.

The trick is that the Tupperware (or Rubbermaid) container needs to be more than bapto. Baptizo is the key to the operation. (So watch out for the janitor. ) Sprinkling water onto it just doesn't work; takes way too long. The idea is not to clean it but to fill it. :bs2: 

[As you can tell, I have a forked tongue in cheek.]


----------



## tcalbrecht

[quote:fe2ae85405="VanVos"]I think the fact that John baptize people in the river near Salim suggest that it was by immersion, why else would he look for a place where the was much water?(John 20:23)

VanVos[/quote:fe2ae85405]

John 3:32: "John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there;" 

No mention of a river. Aenon means "a place of springs". While the location is not certain, it is certainly reasonable that the phrase "much water" refers to the number of springs in the area where John baptized. Springs would provide a good source of water for sprinkling or pouring.

If baptism is by immersion, and the phrase "went down into the water" indicates immersion, how many Baptists follow the apparent pattern in Acts 8:38-39 where it says that both Philip and the eunuch "went down into the water" and "came up out of the water"?


----------



## RamistThomist

[b:4e0da35bdd]JohnV wrote: [/b:4e0da35bdd]
In my background the important thing has always been not the mode, but the number of times. Once, and no more! Otherwise it would constitute a denial of baptism. So a second baptism is a denial of baptism altogether, what is stands for, and not just a denial of the first one. 

Well put. That has helped me put a few things in perspective.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Usually immersionists take the idea for immersion from the texts thus far mentioned, and then the act as submersion of the whole body under the water by assocating it with "buried in baptism". But how long should one stay under the water if Jesus was entombed for 3 days?


----------



## blhowes

[quote:ca3cf1245c="JohnV"][As you can tell, I have a forked tongue in cheek.][/quote:ca3cf1245c]
It was a little difficult to tell at first, until you got to the part about the Tupperware drinking bottle. Everybody knows that Presbyterians have money, so that was a dead give away. Now, if you had said a Sterling Silver bowl with gold around the edges instead, I would have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Nigel lee's paper on 'sprinkling':
http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs5/sis/sprinkle.html


----------



## VanVos

[quote:1930373b5a="tcalbrecht"][quote:1930373b5a="VanVos"]I think the fact that John baptize people in the river near Salim suggest that it was by immersion, why else would he look for a place where the was much water?(John 20:23)

VanVos[/quote:1930373b5a]

John 3:32: "John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there;" 

No mention of a river. Aenon means "a place of springs". While the location is not certain, it is certainly reasonable that the phrase "much water" refers to the number of springs in the area where John baptized. Springs would provide a good source of water for sprinkling or pouring.

If baptism is by immersion, and the phrase "went down into the water" indicates immersion, how many Baptists follow the apparent pattern in Acts 8:38-39 where it says that both Philip and the eunuch "went down into the water" and "came up out of the water"?[/quote:1930373b5a]

You are right that Aenon is better described as springs rather than a river, but that still doesn't make too much sense to me, that John would travel all that way to find water to sprinkle. That to me would make little sense of John the Revelator emphasizing that the was much water there. But that being said, this is not an issue of life or death, I would certainly accept person's sprinkling as valid, but I would personally baptize someone by immersion.

VanVos


----------



## fredtgreco

How much water would you need to sprinkle a few hundred or a few thousand people? Could you do it with the water in a glass? A pitcher?


----------



## tcalbrecht

[quote:358a1330d0="VanVos"]
You are right that Aenon is better described as springs rather than a river, but that still doesn't make too much sense to me, that John would travel all that way to find water to sprinkle. That to me would make little sense of John the Revelator emphasizing that the was much water there. But that being said, this is not an issue of life or death, I would certainly accept person's sprinkling as valid, but I would personally baptize someone by immersion.

VanVos[/quote:358a1330d0]

Where does it say anything about how far he had to travel?


----------



## RamistThomist

Assuming that John baptized for most of the year, most of the day, how did he have the strength to lower and raise hundreds and thousands in and out of the water?


----------



## VanVos

Aenon was a place east of the Jordan River, so he went further than the Jordan River (Mark 1:5) inorder to get to a place where the was much water. So I conclude that he would have walked further than normal to get there. If John was wanting to sprinkle a few hundred, or even a few thousand couldn't he have done that at a closer water source than Aenon? 

VanVos


----------



## VanVos

[quote:3f1547a9e3="Finn McCool"]Assuming that John baptized for most of the year, most of the day, how did he have the strength to lower and raise hundreds and thousands in and out of the water?[/quote:3f1547a9e3]

He ate wild honey and locust  

VanVos

P.S. maybe he had his disciples help him.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

[quote:f18926d9fa="VanVos"]I think the fact that John baptize people in the river near Salim suggest that it was by immersion, why else would he look for a place where the was much water?(John 20:23)

VanVos[/quote:f18926d9fa][quote:f18926d9fa="tcalbrecht"]John 3:32: "John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there;" 

No mention of a river. Aenon means "a place of springs". While the location is not certain, it is certainly reasonable that the phrase "much water" refers to the number of springs in the area where John baptized. Springs would provide a good source of water for sprinkling or pouring.[/quote:f18926d9fa][quote:f18926d9fa="VanVos"]You are right that Aenon is better described as springs rather than a river, but that still doesn't make too much sense to me, that John would travel all that way to find water to sprinkle. That to me would make little sense of John the Revelator emphasizing that the was much water there.[/quote:f18926d9fa] 
Along with others, like Jay Adams, I wonder why "hudata polla" (to eliminate confusion, the actual reference is John 3:23) is rendered so often in translation as "much water" instead of strictly literally, "[b:f18926d9fa]many[/b:f18926d9fa] water[b:f18926d9fa]s[/b:f18926d9fa]" i.e. "stream[b:f18926d9fa]s[/b:f18926d9fa]", "fountain[b:f18926d9fa]s[/b:f18926d9fa]", or "spring[b:f18926d9fa]s[/b:f18926d9fa]" ("Aenon" as already mentioned means "springs/fountains"). "Hudata" is a plural noun (hudowr=sing.). "Polla" means either: "much", when speaking of something singular); or "many", when used with the plural. Adams quotes the folowing (from Wilbur A. Christy): "...these springs trickling through marshy meadow land on their way to the Jordan, as they do to this day [no date given] offer little or no facilities for immersion." 

Regarding why John should have removed from the Jordan (the largest source of water around) Adams quotes further: "the contrast of the cool clear water of these 'many springs' with the foul muddy flood of the Jordan 'overflowing all its banks,' as it usually did at this season of the year (Joshua 3:15), and then the insistent requirement of the law, that he should use clean water for baptism."


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Here is an (excerpted) quote from Adams' quote from R.W. Dale: [quote:ffc09c61f9]Agamemnon was baptized; Bacchus was baptized; Cupid was baptized; Cleinian was baptized; Alexander was baptized; Panthia was baptized; Otho was baptized; Charicles was baptized; and a host of others were baptized, each differing from the other in the nature or the mode, or both.

A blind man could more readily select any demanded color from the spectrum, or a child could more readily thread the Cretan Labyrinth, than could 'the seven wise men of Greece' declare the nature, or mode, of any given baptism by the naked help of [i:ffc09c61f9]baptizo[/i:ffc09c61f9].

... WHATEVER IS CAPABLE OF THOROUGHLY CHANGING THE CHARACTER, STATE, OR CONDITION OF ANY OBJECT, IS CAPABLE OF BAPTIZING THAT OBJECT: AND BY SUCH CHANGE OF CHARACTER, STATE, OR CONDITION DOES, IN FACT, BAPTIZE IT.[/quote:ffc09c61f9]


----------



## blhowes

[quote:a8b076e4ff="Scott Bushey"]Nigel lee's paper on 'sprinkling':
http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs5/sis/sprinkle.html[/quote:a8b076e4ff]
Thanks for the link. I had time to read a few pages this morning before leaving to catch the train. Very good so far.

The only question I have so far was how he related the blood shed when Cain killed Abel to sprinkling (or to the spiritual significance of sprinkling). I'll have to go back and reread it when I get a chance - maybe it'll be clearer then.


----------



## pastorway

[quote:e8450ca2fc="blhowes"][quote:e8450ca2fc="tcalbrecht"]
So according to this ancient usage (assuming it's accurate), modern Baptists don't really "baptizo" they only "bapto", perform a "quick dip".[/quote:e8450ca2fc]
That sounds accurate, depending of course on the relative sizes of the pastor and the person being baptized. With children, its definitely a "quick dip", with regular-sized people its a "somewhat quick dip", and with those who are much larger/heavier than the pastor, its more of a "dunk-and-hope-he-comes-back-up dip".[/quote:e8450ca2fc]

I have to relate a personal story here.

My very first baptism was the IMMERSION of a truck driver named Jim. He was 6'5" and weighed at the time 345 pounds. I am 5'7' and at the time was 130 pounds.

When I dunked him, the displacement was such that water splashed over the wall onto the platform, and yes, I did drop him! When you wrote about it being a "dunk-and-hope-he-comes-back-up dip" I have to assure you that fat most definitely floats!

The congregation was in shock and then began to applaud when we came up out of the water.....

Phillip


----------



## Scott Bushey

Tidal wave!!!!!!! Hahahaha


----------



## blhowes

[quote:3e94efb8e2="pastorway"]I have to relate a personal story here.

My very first baptism was the IMMERSION of a truck driver named Jim. He was 6'5" and weighed at the time 345 pounds. I am 5'7' and at the time was 130 pounds.

When I dunked him, the displacement was such that water splashed over the wall onto the platform, and yes, I did drop him! When you wrote about it being a "dunk-and-hope-he-comes-back-up dip" I have to assure you that fat most definitely floats!

The congregation was in shock and then began to applaud when we came up out of the water...[/quote:3e94efb8e2]

Great story. That's hilarious.

...OK, gentlemen. Place your bets. After going through something like that the odds must be 10 to 1 that when he got home from church he took out his Bible and briefly reviewed his notes from school..."Let's doublecheck this. Does baptizo really mean immerse"


----------



## pastorway

Whatever it means I sure felt like a "dip"....

hehehehe


----------



## Ianterrell

> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> [quote:1930373b5a="tcalbrecht"][quote:1930373b5a="VanVos"]I think the fact that John baptize people in the river near Salim suggest that it was by immersion, why else would he look for a place where the was much water?(John 20:23)
> 
> VanVos[/quote:1930373b5a]
> 
> John 3:32: "John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there;"
> 
> No mention of a river. Aenon means "a place of springs". While the location is not certain, it is certainly reasonable that the phrase "much water" refers to the number of springs in the area where John baptized. Springs would provide a good source of water for sprinkling or pouring.
> 
> If baptism is by immersion, and the phrase "went down into the water" indicates immersion, how many Baptists follow the apparent pattern in Acts 8:38-39 where it says that both Philip and the eunuch "went down into the water" and "came up out of the water"?[/quote:1930373b5a]
> 
> You are right that Aenon is better described as springs rather than a river, but that still doesn't make too much sense to me, that John would travel all that way to find water to sprinkle. That to me would make little sense of John the Revelator emphasizing that the was much water there. But that being said, this is not an issue of life or death, I would certainly accept person's sprinkling as valid, but I would personally baptize someone by immersion.
> 
> VanVos



When Indian men and women flock to the river Ganges it is not to "dip" or "plunge" into the waters, they need fresh running water to wash. When soldiers would go to the rivers to sprinkle their faces it was for the fresh water there. Stale water is not used for purification rites like Christian baptism either, rather the fresh water found most easily in John's day in a river or spring.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

The early Christian church beleived that running water (non stagnant) was the best to use since it represented the flowing water of life that runs fromt he throne of God in heaven. It is a cleansing idea not a quantity idea that the Jews had concerning purification rites.


----------



## crhoades

Two long time friends were walking in the cool of the morning discussing the mode of baptism. Both had graduated seminary at the same time, moved to the same town, and each started their ministries there: One a baptist - the other a presbyterian (Go figure...)

Let's listen in to their conversation:

Presbyterian: So let me get this straight...you believe a person isn't baptized unless they have been fully immersed in water - is that correct?

Baptist: Correct. We believe in full immersion - not pouring or sprinkling.

Presbyterian: So if you walked a person into a stream up to their ankles that wouldn't consist in an actual baptism?

Baptist: No sir, no baptism.

Presbyterian: What if you got them wet up past their knees?

Baptist: Still not good enough.

Presbyterian: What about if they waded in to their waist? Would you pronounce them baptized?

Baptist: No, no, no...what about immersion do you not understand?

Presbyterian: Please forgive me, I am slow sometimes...I really do want to understand you and I thank you for your patience. Just a couple of more questions and I'll move onto other edifying topics. What if they were immersed up to their chest? 

Baptist: No.

Presbyterian: Neck?

Baptist: No.

Presbyterian: What if they walked all the way in, held their breath, and were up to their eyeballs in water?

Baptist: No, they have to be immersed.

Presbyterian: I think I understand now...You and I agree after all! Wait until the next Presbytery meeting!

Baptist: Wha...What do you mean? Did I convince you that immersion is the only way for baptism to be properly administered?

Presbyterian: On the contrary - you gave me great evidence against it!

Baptist: I did?!?

Presbyterian: You sure did. You convinced me that getting your feet wet doesn't make one baptized. You convinced me that getting wet up to your knees or waist doesn't make one baptized. You convinced me that being up to your chest or neck in water doesn't make one baptized. You even convinced me that being up to your eyeballs in water doesn't cut it.

Baptist: So?!?

Presbyterian: So what that tells me is that both of us deem water being administered to the head as sufficient to consider one baptized.

[Edited on 18-10-2004 by crhoades]


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by crhoades_
> Presbyterian: So what that tells me is that both of us deem water being administered to the head as sufficient to consider one baptized.


 good one.


----------

