Baptism in Matthew 28:19.

[heirmiles]

Another idea associated with immersion in terms of discipleship in Christ is becoming immersed in Christ Himself. The symbolic nature of baptism symbolizes our association with Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. Romans 6:3,4 discusses in a sense the 'separation' (part of how death is understood in the Biblical context) from the old life, the application of Christ's sacrifice on our behalf, and our inclusion in His resurrected life in terms of our walk, relationship, and eternal existence with and in God. Christ's righteousness is now our righteousness, Christ's life is now our life. Being immersed in Christ is our complete identification with Christ in the new life.

 

[OldStudent]

I gave you Biblical facts (as requested), and you gave me romantic interpretations based upon metaphors.

If you are this committed to them, how come you didn't also advocate ritual suicide, considering that Jesus also compared Baptism to death?

Are you refering to the evidence presented in post #14? If that is the case it is apparent that we are working from very different paradigms of Biblical evidence. We appear to be using a common language but the definitions are different so we don't know how to talk to each other.

Sorry for the trade of barbs.

 

[Steve.Page]

Yes, but it would take so long to do it well. "There is much water here" refers to a series of shallow pools unsuitable for immersion, so that baptismal mode had to be affusion or something like it. Jesus' own baptism is often misrepresented by Christians of certain traditions as immersion because they wrongly interpret "came up out of the water" to mean "from beneath the waves" when it really refers to his ascending the banks of the river from the river (the "up from"), and so on.


Yes.

That seems like quite stretch. I'm not sure what verses you are referring to but, it would seem "There is much water here" would have been said because there was enough water for immersion.

To speak of “baptismal sprinkling” would constitute a contradiction of terms. The verbs represent entirely different actions.
Second, there is not a solitary passage in the New Testament that lends any support to the idea that the act called “baptism” by the New Testament writers was administered by the sprinkling or pouring of water upon a person’s head.
Albert Barnes, the Presbyterian scholar, attempted to defend sprinkling as a mode of baptism. Regarding Matthew 3:16, he wrote:
“It literally means, ‘he [Jesus] went up directly FROM the water.’ The original does not imply that they had descended into the river, and it cannot be proved, therefore, from this passage, that his baptism was by immersion” (Commentary on Matthew, p. 30; emp. in original).
The argument is based upon the fact that the term “from” (ASV) is the Greek term apo, which generally means “away from,” and not “out of” (KJV), which normally is expressed by the word ek. But there are several things wrong with this argument.
Apo can be used in the sense of “out of,” as in the case of Luke 24:47, where the gospel was to go forth “from,” i.e., “out of,” Jerusalem. In fact, occasionally apo and ek are used interchangeably....

...Mark also wrote that Jesus was “baptized of John in the Jordan” (1:9). Actually, the preposition, rendered “in” in our common versions (yet see ASVfn), is eis, which means “into.” S.T. Bloomfield (1790-1869), of the Church of England (a church that practices sprinkling as a substitute for immersion) was honest enough to admit that the expression eis ton Iordanen meant that Jesus was baptized “by being plunged into the water” (The Greek Testament With English Notes, Vol. I, p. 158).
Finally, the theological connection between “baptism,” and the burial and resurrection of Christ (Romans 6:3-4; Colossians 2:12), negates the notion that the rite may be performed by sprinkling or pouring. The prospective Christian is “buried” in the water of baptism “with” Christ. Just as Jesus was raised out of the tomb, so we also are raised from the liquid grave of baptism.
This analogy, among other matters, led John Henry Blunt (1823-1884), another Anglican scholar, to acknowledge (against his own church) that “the primitive mode of baptizing was by immersion” (Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology, p. 75). https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1036-was-jesus-immersed-in-the-jordan-river

Regarding whether or not water immersion was referred to in Matt 28:19, certainly water baptism is what was referred to. The command was "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them..." Men can only baptize with water, only the Lord is able to baptize with the Spirit.

 

[Albion]

That seems like quite stretch. I'm not sure what verses you are referring to but, it would seem "There is much water here" would have been said because there was enough water for immersion.

You'd prefer for it to mean that, but you understand, I hope, that there's no reason it has to. So...what does the area actually look like? That would decide it, wouldn't you agree? Well, it is a marshy place where there are many shallow pools, nothing that would obviously be good for immersion, but it sure would be a place that would be described as having a lot of water.

 

[michaelG1949]

i'm not too sure we can go by what it looks like today. rivers and other bodies of water change all the time. it could have been a raging river or a mud puddle at the time..archeologists looking for sites described as on the river have had a hard time because the river had moved. also watching a documentary by a jewish archeologist he showed man made pools claimed o be used for ritual baptism

 

[Steve.Page]

You'd prefer for it to mean that, but you understand, I hope, that there's no reason it has to. So...what does the area actually look like? That would decide it, wouldn't you agree? Well, it is a marshy place where there are many shallow pools, nothing that would obviously be good for immersion, but it sure would be a place that would be described as having a lot of water.

What area are you referring to and what are your scriptures references to support that exact place?

But no matter what area you are referring to you have no factual evidence of the exact place the baptism occurred, no factual evidence water levels are the same, no evidence there was definitely not a pool deep enough for immersion and no scriptural support for your assumptions. If it was anything other than immersion there would have be no need to mention water at all, they would have just poured some water out of their canteens or whatever they used. The fact is they (If you are referring to Acts 8) they seemed pleased they a large quantity of water.

People will choose to do what and believe what they wish, bit the most faithful view of baptism is immersion. That's a linguistic, Biblical and historical fact. As the piece I quoted and other posters have said Paul likened baptism to Jesus' burial and that can only mean immersion. The Didache is the first known document that allowed sprinkling, rather than immersion, in emergencies, but we all know that wasn't an inspired writing.

As far as I know denominations didn't begin to sprinkle, exclusively, till the Roman Catholic Church came along 300 years after Jesus' resurrection. I always wondered if that was because it was easier for them to sprinkle the thousands of people who were forced to convert than it was to immerse them.

 

[Albion]

What area are you referring to and what are your scriptures references to support that exact place?

But no matter what area you are referring to you have no factual evidence

Steve, I never fail to be amused by that routine, regardless of who's using it--first, say "produce your evidence," and then immediately also say "but I'm not going to believe it!" Really makes a fella want to go to more trouble.

People will choose to do what and believe what they wish, bit the most faithful view of baptism is immersion.

No. That style has good symbolism, all right, but there's no reason to think it's better or more legitimate than any other method using water. At least please don't fall for the claim made by certain groups in Christianity who think it's either 'the' Biblical method and/or essential. Have your own family members baptised that way if you like the symbolism, and let it go at that.

You're welcome.

 

[Albion]

i'm not too sure we can go by what it looks like today.

No one's going by "what it looks like today."

Do you really, really think that archaeologists and Bible scholars wouldn't be concerned first and foremost about what it looked like THEN?

 

[krugerpark]

if you've been baptized in the holy spirit you will know scripture isn't talking about water here, because most people haven't experienced this next step after becoming born again. It isn't just somebody laying hands and praying its is a tremendous inner change.

even Pentecostal churches confuse the two, or hope that the two happen at once but that is unbiblical

 

[Albion]

if you've been baptized in the holy spirit you will know scripture isn't talking about water here

Apart from what any of us thinks of the "baptism in the Holy Spirit," if you're referring to the passage I paraphrased, there is no way that it could possibly refer to anything other than baptism in water.

 

[krugerpark]

many people who have been in religion for a while and not had the baptism of the holy ghost are going to resist the notion that it is biblical.

 

[Albion]

many people who have been in religion for a while and not had the baptism of the holy ghost are going to resist the notion that it is biblical.

You're certainly entitled to that POV, but it has nothing to do with whether the water baptisms that are recorded in the New Testament were performed by submersion or by affusion or by sprinkling.

 

[krugerpark]

you assume they all involved water though the way Jesus was baptized with water

 

[Albion]

you assume they all involved water though the way Jesus was baptized with water

No. But the one that I referred to certainly dealt with water although not with immersion.

 

[krugerpark]

Baptism is with water.

Immersion is one of several means of applying it.

Baptism is "for the remission of sins."

When it is said to do something "in the name of" it means "by the authority of," not the stating of a given name. For example, "Stop in the name of the law" does not mean yelling "law, law" at a robber.

Matthew 28:19
New International Version (NIV)
19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

so you're saying that the word baptized being used here must refer to water baptism

 

[Albion]

so you're saying that the word baptized being used here must refer to water baptism

Of course it does. The speaker says that he can be baptised without further delay because of the amount of water in that region where he was standing.

 

[krugerpark]

so you're saying that when Jesus said this, they were near water, therefore he was talking about water baptism?

 

[Albion]

so you're saying that when Jesus said this, they were near water, therefore he was talking about water baptism?

No. Not Jesus speaking. Not Jesus being baptised.

 

[krugerpark]

I see where you went with this. Is the same greek word used in both passages?

 

[Albion]

I see where you went with this. Is the same greek word used in both passages?

Where I was going was nothing more than a reference to topography as shedding some light on the mode of baptism in that one instance.