Baptism in Matthew 28:19.

That's confusing, since thread title is Matthew 28:19 and the quote from page 1 also referred to that.

Albion said:

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.

Click to expand...

at best you seem to be jumbling scripture

if it was the same greek word you'd have an argument

krugerpark said:

That's confusing, since thread title is Matthew 28:19 and the quote from page 1 also referred to that.



at best you seem to be jumbling scripture

Click to expand...

No, you merely came into the middle of a discussion and didn't pick up where it was at that point.

yes you seem to have changed your stance/understanding of the matter from page 1

CherubRam said:

In regards to baptism in Matthew 28:19.

I’m not speaking of Gnostic writings or scribal errors. As a matter of fact, some words in the originals are not translated because they would change the meaning of what we read.
As for what the Church Fathers believed, read this:

"The Demonstratio Evangelica" by Eusebius:
Eusebius of Caesarea. 265 ? AD.– 337 ? AD.

Eusebius was the Church historian and Bishop of Caesarea. On page 152 Eusebius quotes the early book of Matthew that he had in his library in Caesarea. Eusebius informs us of Jesus actual words to his disciples in the original text of Matthew 28:19.

Quote: "With one word and voice He said to His disciples: "Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all...

And again Eusebius for example, in Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2, which is about the Jewish persecution of early Christians, we read:

"But the rest of the disciples, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went to all nations to preach the good news, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, "Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in my name."


And again, in his Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8, we read:

"What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name?
Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke these words to his followers, and fulfilled it by that event, saying to them, "Go ye and make disciples of all nations in my name."

The scripture Eusebius is quoting is not what we read today. We do find that his quote does agree with other scriptures.

Acts 2:38
Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Acts 4:12
Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Acts 8:16
(For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)

Acts 10:48
And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 19:4
Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

Acts 19:5
When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 22:16
And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

Romans 6:3
Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?

Galatians 3:27
For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

Click to expand...

Is it just me? I don't see a question here. Are you saying that disciples have to baptize in the name of Jesus and not in the name of "the Father Son and Holy Ghost???" I don't see anything here talking about immersion or sprinkling. What are you trying to discuss. Pardon me for missing it.

krugerpark said:

yes you seem to have changed your stance/understanding of the matter from page 1

Click to expand...

Not changed, but I can't say how difficult it might be for folks to interpret "Baptism is with water."

baptism can be with water but the immersed substance changes throughout the NT. Those people would be confusing various passages and would do well to study and UNDERSTAND the differences in greek connotation.

krugerpark said:

baptism can be with water but the immersed substance changes throughout the NT.

Click to expand...

For example....?

in the scripture quoted in the title of this thread.

krugerpark said:

in the scripture quoted in the title of this thread.

Click to expand...

Why do you not just come out and answer the question? What is it that you think is to be baptised in that case, if not people?

people. But not in water as you stated for some reason in one of your later posts.

I'm not going to comment on shooting yourself.

However, your posts are too confusing for me to continue this.

krugerpark said:

However, your posts are too confusing for me to continue this.

Click to expand...

If the previous post STILL leaves you confused, I agree that there's no point in pushing on.

no it would be insulting to all the people who tried to correct you already (people that I thought were pretty clear)

Steve.Page said:

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.

Click to expand...

It seems well to ask if we do justice to the passage to just truncate the passage at "...baptizing them..." (and call it water) when the expression seems to continue with the definition of Jesus' intention - to baptize (surround, immerse) disciples in the name - the values, qualities, authority, power, exercise of love associated with the fullness (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) of God. Jesus seems to handing those present (and us through them) power of attorney (as in the "signet ring" of a kings deputy) to do business as He would. This seems to be the intent in preserving the context.

Looking at what is immediatly recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, this conclusion seems to check out. Yes, there was water baptism - lots of it - but note what preceeded and precipitated it - the powerful work and preaching of the gospel leading to conviction and desire for grace, forgiveness, redemption. Then came the general bath, the desired cleansing represented in the water baptism.

Do we short change the passage if we just chop it? I certainly recognize common practice of doing so but I, at least, can no longer defend doing so. How well do I understand the implications of this? It's mind blowing. I can't get my head around it all. But that is not unsual. God's extravagace is usually like that. It gives room to grow and cause for praise. It should give us great urgency to become so aligned with Jesus as to handle such privilege with the intended influence and without inflicting abuse.

krugerpark said:

no it would be insulting to all the people who tried to correct you already (people that I thought were pretty clear)

Click to expand...

I know that you insist upon having the last, nasty, word even after you've said that you've ended the conversation. Let's agree that that one was it, OK? No reply necessary.

its not about having the last word its about getting it right

Whatever. Just so THAT's your last word.

OldStudent said:

It seems well to ask if we do justice to the passage to just truncate the passage at "...baptizing them..." (and call it water) when the expression seems to continue with the definition of Jesus' intention - to baptize (surround, immerse) disciples in the name - the values, qualities, authority, power, exercise of love associated with the fullness (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) of God. Jesus seems to handing those present (and us through them) power of attorney (as in the "signet ring" of a kings deputy) to do business as He would. This seems to be the intent in preserving the context.

Looking at what is immediatly recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, this conclusion seems to check out. Yes, there was water baptism - lots of it - but note what preceeded and precipitated it - the powerful work and preaching of the gospel leading to conviction and desire for grace, forgiveness, redemption. Then came the general bath, the desired cleansing represented in the water baptism.

Do we short change the passage if we just chop it? I certainly recognize common practice of doing so but I, at least, can no longer defend doing so. How well do I understand the implications of this? It's mind blowing. I can't get my head around it all. But that is not unsual. God's extravagace is usually like that. It gives room to grow and cause for praise. It should give us great urgency to become so aligned with Jesus as to handle such privilege with the intended influence and without inflicting abuse.

Click to expand...

I understand you, however nothing changes, in fact my point is shown to be even more valid. In the context, Jesus is telling men what they must do. Men are unable to baptize any other person with the Spirit of God, only God baptizes with the Spirit. Jesus can only be speaking about water immersion, according to the context and the meaning of the words in the original language.

Albion said:

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.




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.

Click to expand...

There are many reasons why baptism means immersion and that it is essential.

All Greek Bible dictionaries define the word "baptizo" only as immerse, dip or plunge.

Jesus (God) said to be baptized, and his Spirit spoke through Peter and said why, that makes it essential.

OldStudent asked you "Can you point out some of those indications of baptism by modes other than immersion…", and you replied with no proof at all. You did make a confused statement about "There is much water here" but that is not even found in Matthew 28.

John 3:23 says, "Now John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there." Why was John baptizing near Salim? "Because there was much water there." Scriptural baptism, which is immersion, according to the Bible requires much water.

" In Mark 1:5 we read, "Then all the land of Judea, and those from Jerusalem, went out to Him, and were all baptized by him in the Jordan River." Why was John baptizing in the Jordan River? Could it be "because there was much water there" in a river?

In Mark 1:9-10, we continue to read, "And it came to pass in those days that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. And immediately, coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove." When Jesus was baptized, he was baptized in the Jordan River. Why? Again, because there is much water in a river which is required for scriptural baptism, which is immersion. Also notice after Jesus was baptized, he came "up out of the water." So scriptural baptism not only requires much water, but it also requires "coming up out of the water." This cannot be said of sprinkling or pouring.

Next we turn to Acts 8:36-39. The evangelist, Philip, had been teaching the gospel or good news of Christ to an Ethiopian eunuch while they were riding along in a chariot. Then in verses 36-39 we read: "Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, See here is water, what hinders me from being baptized? And Philip said, If you believe with all your heart, you may. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing." Here we see the baptism God has authorized in the Bible requires the "coming to some water", "going down into the water," and after a person is immersed it requires "coming up out of the water." How much clearer could the Bible be on the mode of baptism? Also notice after the eunuch was baptized, "he went on his way rejoicing." Why? Because he was now saved and all of his sins had been taken away. This is certainly something for one to rejoice.

Romans 6:4 says, "Therefore we were buried with him by baptism into death." Here we see that baptism is a burial, which is what is done when one is immersed. Sprinkling is not a burial; it is only sprinkling. Neither is pouring a burial. Both are unlawful substitutions made by man which will cause many people to be lost.

Colossians 2:12 says we are "buried with him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him." Here again God requires the one being baptized, to be buried and raised when he is baptized. When we bury a dead person in the cemetery, we do not lay him out on the grass and sprinkle a little dirt on him. No, that would be absurd, and it is just as absurd in trying to substitute sprinkling for baptism. Sprinkling for baptism is foreign to the scriptures. God did not authorize it. There is not one instance anywhere in the Bible where anyone was sprinkled for baptism.

But we then ask the question, from where then did sprinkling or pouring come? The first recorded case in all of early church history was that of Novatian in 251 AD, who lay sick on his bed and water was poured on him. Who made this first exception, man or God? Man did without the authorization of God. God has not approved of it. Sprinkling is just as vain as if it had never been done. This man made exception over the centuries became the man made accepted practice until at the Council of Ravenna in 1311 AD, man legalized sprinkling for baptism, but without God’s authority.

The person who insists on following this man made teaching of sprinkling or pouring has refused to obey God. Sprinkling is without God’s authority. There is no baptism in the absence of immersion. If you were sprinkled or poured, then you have not been scripturally baptized. You still have every sin that you have ever committed and are still lost. If you refuse to admit that your sprinkling is wrong, you will go to your grave refusing to do God's will. On the Day of Judgment you will be eternally condemned to the fires of Hell. Such a tragedy."
internetbiblestudy