Baptism Question

Aibrean said:

There is no requirement that you be fully immersed to be baptized.

Click to expand...

Actually there is, for we must be "buried" in the water of baptism (Romans 6:4, Colossians 2:12). No one is "buried" by having some dirt merely sprinkled on his forehead. Also, note that the original Greek noun for "baptism" (baptismos) is derived from the original Greek verb for "baptize" (baptizo), which means to immerse, for it's derived from the original Greek verb "bapto", which means to cover wholly with a fluid.

It's not possible to prove that baptize always refers to immersion. While yes, many passes refer to rivers, it does not say how the water in baptism was applied. In addition, there are many places in the world without large bodies of water.

Could not "buried" be wholly symbolic? Certainly it was water, not dirt being used anyway.

http://www.catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp said:

The Didache was written around A.D. 70 and, though not inspired, is a strong witness to the sacramental practice of Christians in the apostolic age. In its seventh chapter, the Didache reads, "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." These instructions were composed either while some of the apostles and disciples were still alive or during the next generation of Christians, and they represent an already established custom.

The testimony of the Didache is seconded by other early Christian writings. Hippolytus of Rome said, "If water is scarce, whether as a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available" (The Apostolic Tradition, 21 [A.D. 215]). Pope Cornelius I wrote that as Novatian was about to die, "he received baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring" (Letter to Fabius of Antioch [A.D. 251]; cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:4311).

Click to expand...

Aibrean said:

It's not possible to prove that baptize always refers to immersion. While yes, many passes refer to rivers, it does not say how the water in baptism was applied. In addition, there are many places in the world without large bodies of water.

Could not "buried" be wholly symbolic? Certainly it was water, not dirt being used anyway.

Click to expand...

Here is one source of evidence. The word baptism is a transliteration of the greek word baptizo. Baptizo literally means to dip or immerse. That is what the word we get baptism from, means.

So people in AD 70 were taught wrong? The people who were taught from the Apostle's were taught wrong?

Learn church history. The Didache and other references from 2000 years ago point to a different interpretation than you. Interpretations have changed in 2000 years I would lean towards the validity of their examples than yours.

No. I don't. I'm going to leave this thread now. I just wanted to make a point. I'm not going to further debate.

Aibrean said:

It's not possible to prove that baptize always refers to immersion.

Click to expand...

Actually, it is. For, as has been pointed out, the original Greek noun for "baptism" (baptismos) is derived from the original Greek verb for "baptize" (baptizo), which means to immerse, for it's derived from the original Greek verb "bapto", which means to cover wholly with a fluid. Also, we are to be "buried" in the water of baptism (Romans 6:4, Colossians 2:12). No one is "buried" by having some dirt merely sprinkled on his forehead.

Aibrean said:

While yes, many passes refer to rivers, it does not say how the water in baptism was applied. In addition, there are many places in the world without large bodies of water.

Click to expand...

Note that no reference has been made to any need for large bodies of water. No matter where believers live, if they have enough water to drink, to irrigate their crops, to water their cattle, to wash themselves, and to wash their clothing, then they have enough water to pour into a shallow tub in which they can immerse (baptize) a new believer. And if they don't have enough water to do these things, then clearly they are in a location not suitable for human habitation, and they need to move immediately to where water is available for them to survive, and to immerse (baptize) new believers.

Aibrean said:

Could not "buried" be wholly symbolic?

Click to expand...

"Buried" is both literal and symbolic: our literally being buried (immersed) in the water of baptism is symbolic of our dying and being buried into Jesus Christ's literal death and burial for our sins (Romans 6:3-11, Colossians 2:12). Similarly, when we literally rise up out of the water of baptism, this is symbolic of our being raised up into a new life in Jesus Christ, just as Jesus himself was literally raised from the dead (Romans 6:4b, Colossians 2:12b).

So if we deny our need to be immersed and then to come up out of the water, this is akin to denying the need for Jesus to literally die and be buried for our sins, and then to literally rise from the dead (1 Corinthians 15). That is, if we feel free to claim that baptism is "wholly symbolic", then what will prevent us from claiming that Jesus' death and resurrection is also "wholly symbolic", that it never happened literally?

Aibrean said:

Certainly it was water, not dirt being used anyway.

Click to expand...

Yes, but saying that having some water sprinkled on one's forehead is one being "buried" is no different than saying that a dead person can be buried in dirt by merely sprinkling some dirt on his forehead. It doesn't make sense.

Aibrean said:

Originally Posted by http://www.catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp

The Didache was written around A.D. 70 and, though not inspired, is a strong witness to the sacramental practice of Christians in the apostolic age.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

What's the proof that the Didache was written around 70 AD, instead of "about the year 100" or sometime in the "early 2nd century" (Wikipedia)? And what's the proof that any of the apostles even approved of every part of the Didache, much less that it was taught in its entirety by the twelve apostles themselves, as the Didache itself claims in its very first line: "The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles" (Didache text). If the early church had known (or even believed) that the Didache was truly "The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles", then why isn't it part of the New Testament?

And if the early church determined that the Didache wasn't truly "The Lord's Teaching Through the Twelve Apostles", then the Didache starts out with a false claim. And if the Didache starts out with such a serious false claim, on what basis should we accept everything that it teaches as necessarily being true?

---

While the Didache includes many good teachings which are in line with what the Bible teaches, some of its teachings aren't in line with the Bible. In chapter one, the Didache makes the claim: "love those who hate you, and you shall not have an enemy". But the Bible says: "they have rewarded me evil for good, and hatred for my love" (Psalms 109:5), which shows that even when we love those who hate us, it's possible that they will still remain our enemies.

Also, in chapter twelve, the Didache says "receive everyone who comes in the name of the Lord". But the Bible shows that even if someone comes in the name of the Lord, if they deny the true doctrine that Christ is in the flesh, then they are not to be received (2 John 1:7,9).

Aibrean said:

Originally Posted by http://www.catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp . . .

In its seventh chapter, the Didache reads, "Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Note that the seventh chapter of the Didache requires immersion in a river wherever a river is available (this isn't required by the Bible), or immersion in other water whenever other water is available. So why would "catholic.com" want to support what the Didache says? How many adherents of Catholicism are immersed in a river wherever a river is available, or are immersed in other water whenever other water is available?

Also, note that even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that "In the Latin Church, immersion seems to have prevailed until the twelfth century. After that time it is found in some places even as late as the sixteenth century. Infusion and aspersion, however, were growing common in the thirteenth century and gradually prevailed in the Western Church".

On what basis did the Catholic Church (or any other church, for that matter) abandon the requirement of immersion?

---

Also, why would "catholic.com" want to support what the Didache says when the rest of the seventh chapter (but not the Bible) says: "But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whoever else can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before". How many baptizers who are adherents of Catholicism fast one or two days before baptizing anyone? And how many adherents of Catholicism are ordered to fast one or two days before getting baptized?

Also, note that the seventh chapter of the Didache (but not the Bible) says: "Having first said all these things, baptize". How many baptizers who are adherents of Catholicism say chapters one through six of the Didache before baptizing anyone?

Also, note that the ninth chapter of the Didache (but not the Bible) commands exactly what we are to say at both the cup and the bread of the Eucharist. How many adherents of Catholicism say the ninth chapter of the Didache at the Eucharist?

Also, note that the tenth chapter of the Didache (but not the Bible) commands exactly what we are to say after the Eucharist. How many adherents of Catholicism say the tenth chapter of the Didache after the Eucharist?

Also, note that the tenth chapter of the Didache (but not the Bible) commands that after the Eucharist: "permit the prophets to make Thanksgiving as much as they desire". How many Catholic congregations permit this?

Also, note that the eleventh chapter of the Didache (but not the Bible) commands: "Whosoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him. But if the teacher himself turns and teaches another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not". How many adherents of Catholicism refuse to hear anyone who teaches anything that effectively nullifies commands in chapters one through ten of the Didache, such as the detailed commands regarding baptism and the Eucharist in chapters seven, nine, and ten?

Aibrean said:

Originally Posted by http://www.catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp . . .

These instructions were composed either while some of the apostles and disciples were still alive or during the next generation of Christians, and they represent an already established custom.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

What's the proof that the Didache's allowance of non-immersion when enough water isn't available (which, as was pointed out earlier, would be never, in any place inhabitable by humans) was agreed to by any apostle, or that (at the time the Didache was written) it was an "established custom" of the church, and not just the allowance of one didact falsely claiming to speak for "the Lord" himself and all of "the Twelve Apostles" themselves?

Aibrean said:

Originally Posted by http://www.catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp . . .

The testimony of the Didache is seconded by other early Christian writings. Hippolytus of Rome said, "If water is scarce, whether as a constant condition or on occasion, then use whatever water is available" (The Apostolic Tradition, 21 [A.D. 215]).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Regarding the quoted statement being attributed to chapter 21 of The Apostolic Tradition, note that the quoted statement isn't found in chapter 21 of The Apostolic Tradition, at least in the text available at the following website: The Apostolic Tradition. So is the quote actually from some other source? Also, on what authority did the writer himself base the allowance given in the quote?

Also, regarding what the quote itself says, why would "catholic.com" want to support the allowance of non-immersion only "if water is scarce"? How many adherents of Catholicism are immersed when water isn't scarce? And what is meant by "scarce" in any place suitable for human habitation?

---

Also, regarding chapter 21 of The Apostolic Tradition, why would "catholic.com" want to refer to it when it requires baptism in a river or spring (this isn't required by the Bible): "When they come to the water, the water shall be pure and flowing, that is, the water of a spring or a flowing body of water" (Text of The Apostolic Tradition). How many adherents of Catholicism are baptized in a river or spring?

Also, chapter 21 of The Apostolic Tradition (not the Bible) requires that: "At the time determined for baptism, the bishop shall give thanks over some oil, which he puts in a vessel. It is called the Oil of Thanksgiving. He shall take some more oil and exorcise it. It is called the Oil of Exorcism. A deacon shall hold the Oil of Exorcism and stand on the left. Another deacon shall hold the Oil of Thanksgiving and stand on the right". How often is this fulfilled at a Catholic baptism?

Also, chapter 21 of The Apostolic Tradition (not the Bible) requires a huge amount of other details of exactly what must be said and done at every baptism (see the whole chapter). How often is this chapter fulfilled at a Catholic baptism?

---

Also, regarding attributing the work called "The Apostolic Tradition" to Hippolytus of Rome, note that "nowaday this attribution is hotly contested" (Wikipedia).

Also, regarding attributing a date of 215 AD to "The Apostolic Tradition", note that "recent scholars (see Bradshaw) believe that it contains material of separate sources ranging from the middle second to the fourth century, being gathered and compiled on about 375-400 CE, probably in Egypt or even to Syria. Some scholars also suggest that the Apostolic Tradition portrays a liturgy that was never celebrated" (Wikipedia).

---

Regarding Hippolytus of Rome himself, why would "catholic.com" want to quote anything it thought was written by him, when "He came into conflict with the popes of his time and seems to have headed a schismatic group as a rival bishop of Rome. For that reason he is sometimes considered the first Antipope"; and "Starting in the 4th century, various legends arose about him, identifying him as a priest of the Novatianist Schism" (Wikipedia)?

Aibrean said:

Originally Posted by http://www.catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp . . .

Pope Cornelius I wrote that as Novatian was about to die, "he received baptism in the bed where he lay, by pouring" (Letter to Fabius of Antioch [A.D. 251]; cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 6:4311).

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Something very similar to that quote is indeed found in book six of Ecclesiastical History, in chapter 43. And Eusebius is indeed quoting one of the "epistles of Cornelius, bishop of Rome, to Fabius, of the church at Antioch" (paragraph 3), when chapter 43 says: "Being delivered by the exorcists, he [Novatian] fell into a severe sickness; and as he seemed about to die, he received baptism by affusion, on the bed where he lay; if indeed we can say that such a one did receive it. And when he was healed of his sickness he did not receive the other things which it is necessary to have according to the canon of the Church, even the being sealed by the bishop. And as he did not receive this, how could he receive the Holy Spirit?” (paragraphs 14 and 15).

Here Cornelius is first questioning whether Novatian had really received baptism by water, and then is stating that Novatian didn't subsequently receive (the separate baptism of) the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 8:15-17, Acts 19:5-6, Acts 11:15-16, Acts 10:44-48).

Note that Cornelius doesn't state or imply in the quote that he believes that "baptism by affusion" is acceptable to God (instead of immersion) in any case except when a believer "seems about to die". How many adherents of Catholicism aren't immersed when they don't "seem about to die"?

Also, on what authority would Cornelius believe that "baptism by affusion" is acceptable to God (instead of immersion) when a believer "seems about to die"? Why can't a believer who seems about to die be carried immediately to where he can be immersed, such as in a tub of water, or in the nearest body of water?

---

Also, there are some notes which accompany chapter 43 at Christian Classics. Note 2128 (in the yellow column on the right) says that there was "an objection to Novatian’s ordination, based upon his irregular baptism". And Note 2132 says that "Clinic baptism (so-called from [the Greek for] “a bed&#8221 was ordinarily looked upon in the early Church, in which immersion was the common mode of baptism, as permanently debarring a person from the presbyterate, and by many persons it was denied that such baptism was baptism at all".

---

Also, it's curious to note that Novatian would become "Christianity's second ever antipope" and that Hippolytus of Rome would be "considered by some to be Novatian's teacher" (Wikipedia).

.