can I ask why do presyterians etc think baptism is sprinkling?

[Radagast]

Do you know what a prime root word is in Greek? βάπτω , baptō is the prime root of the word βαπτίζω , baptizō. βαπτίζω comes from the primary verb βάπτω .

Etymology is not meaning. βάπτω and βαπτίζω are different verbs. Just as ἀνα-γινώσκω means something completely different from γινώσκω.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Remind me not to eat when you do the cooking.

It's the Jewish practice. The Hand-Washing Ritual involves pouring water over the hands, thrice on each hand, and then saying a blessing. Hand washing wasn't for removing germs, but to cleanse the hands for religious purposes. This is what St. Mark is referring to, and he goes on to mention that other things are similarly washed--"baptized".

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ptomwebster]

Etymology is not meaning. βάπτω and βαπτίζω are different verbs. Just as ἀνα-γινώσκω means something completely different from γινώσκω.

Same root word.

ἀναγινώσκω , anaginóskó , from ana and ginóskó = Strong's word G314

G314 anaginṓskō (from G303 /aná, "up, again," intensifying G1097 /ginṓskō, "personally know") – properly, "to know again" through reading. Reading (314/anaginskō) enables others to re-live (re-appreciate) what was conveyed (experienced) by the original author.

G1097 γινώσκω , ginóskó , (see second portion of the word listed above). Taking in knowledge, come to know, learn; aor: I ascertained, realized.

If you want to have some fun with Greek start a new thread we are taking this one to far from the OP. Maybe you would teach me something, maybe not.

 

[Radagast]

Same root word.

Same root word, different meaning. ἀνα-γινώσκω means "read," while γινώσκω means "know."

Similarly, βάπτω and βαπτίζω have different meanings, as can be confirmed from any good lexicon. Baptizo (βαπτίζ&#969 means:

1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)

2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe

3) to overwhelm

The first two meanings are relevant to baptism.

 

[ptomwebster]

Same root word, different meaning. ἀνα-γινώσκω means "read," while γινώσκω means "know."

Similarly, βάπτω and βαπτίζω have different meanings, as can be confirmed from any good lexicon. Baptizo (βαπτίζ&#969 means:

1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)

2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe

3) to overwhelm

The first two meanings are relevant to baptism.

What are you arguing with me about; your #'s 1 and 2, immerse, submerge, mean you become "fully wet" (baptizo) or "cover wholly with a fluid" (bapto) just like I said way back in post #30, as opposed to sprinkle, ῥαίνω rhainō (to sprinkle) .

When you want to do a word study you look at the Etymology of a word.

 

[Radagast]

What are you arguing with me about; your #'s 1 and 2, immerse, submerge, mean you become "fully wet" (baptizo)

Baptizo does not mean "become fully wet." In the context of baptism, it means "wash/make clean with water" and specifically "wash ceremonially." It does not necessarily mean that submerging occurs.

Several NT baptisms were not done by immersion. The Philippian Jailer was baptized indoors at night, for example (Acts 16:33). This would probably have been done by pouring water from pots.

When you want to do a word study you look at the Etymology of a word

Not if you know anything about languages, you don't. If you want to understand a word, you look it up in the dictionary/lexicon. Here and here. And you look at other uses of the word. Just like what you do with unknown English words, actually. Etymology is interesting, but a poor guide to meaning.

 

[ptomwebster]

Baptizo does not mean "become fully wet." In the context of baptism, it means "wash/make clean with water" and specifically "wash ceremonially." It does not necessarily mean that submerging occurs.

Several NT baptisms were not done by immersion. The Philippian Jailer was baptized indoors at night, for example (Acts 16:33). This would probably have been done by pouring water from pots.



Not if you know anything about languages, you don't. If you want to understand a word, you look it up in the dictionary/lexicon. Here and here. And you look at other uses of the word. Just like what you do with unknown English words, actually. Etymology is interesting, but a poor guide to meaning.

Well, we disagree. You can think you know everything if you want. So be it! How much do you know about Philippi? Have you seen it on a map? Oh well, I've "spent" enough time on this. I'm sure we will meet again.

By the way, I started studying Scripture before you were born.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Well, we disagree. You can think you know everything if you want. So be it! How much do you know about Philippi? Have you seen it on a map? Oh well, I've "spent" enough time on this. I'm sure we will meet again.

By the way, I started studying Scripture before you were born.

Would it help to know that I was born before you started studying scripture?

 

[ptomwebster]

Would it help to know that I was born before you started studying scripture?

Only if you assume God does not talk to a 4 year old, but that would be a false assumption.

 

[Albion]

What are you arguing with me about; your #'s 1 and 2, immerse, submerge, mean you become "fully wet" (baptizo) or "cover wholly with a fluid" (bapto) just like I said way back in post #30, as opposed to sprinkle, ῥαίνω rhainō (to sprinkle) .

When you want to do a word study you look at the Etymology of a word.

Well, all that fine-sounding advice means little because you didn't define baptizo correctly. It does NOT mean immerse or subjerge. That is to say, such is only one of several meanings of that word. Other correct meanings are entirely compatible with affusion.

 

[ptomwebster]

Well, all that fine-sounding advice means little because you didn't define baptizo correctly. It does NOT mean immerse or subjerge. That is to say, such is only one of several meanings of that word. Other correct meanings are entirely compatible with affusion.

I disagree, but again we will not agree because our theologies are different. You are welcome to do anything you feel lead to do, I will do what I feel lead to do.


Baptism is not an issue for me, it's an act of obedience. You are baptized because you are saved, not saved because you are baptized.

 

[Tangible]

Baptism is not an issue for me, it's an act of obedience.

Then how can it accomplish what scripture clearly says that it accomplishes?

You are baptized because you are saved, not saved because you are baptized.

St. Peter disagrees with you, and so do I. While it is possible to be saved without being baptized, and not all who are baptized are saved, the fact remains that one way that God acts to save sinners is through Baptism.

Maybe your understanding of Baptism as a work of man instead of a work of God is part of the problem you encounter in harmonizing scripture. You end up pitting scripture against scripture instead of asking how both could be true.

Scary thing is, you eventually wind up saying that some parts of scripture true while others are not.

Sounds like a pretty big issue to me.

 

[Shane R]

I am writing a book on baptism. I do not think I can cover the entire scope of error propagated on the subject on this forum. It is too much to keep track of.

 

[rekernsl3737]

I am writing a book on baptism. I do not think I can cover the entire scope of error propagated on the subject on this forum. It is too much to keep track of.

many books can be wrote concerning baptism. We must worship god in spirit and in truth. I have been in late night services to where we left the church building and went to a sizeable lake at night to baptize a new convert. There were many trees around this lake along with a slight breeze. It was cold but the pastor still baptized in the name of jesus. To really baptize someone you must have access to water. It could be certain bodies of water or even personel. You must be able to lead them to this water also! Listen carefully to this baptism, I have that spiritual water to bring you to. It will overwhelm (baptize) your mind. look at that river! The one that flows from my belly as jesus said. These words flow like a river and if you listen carefully you will catch something from it. This spiritual river that flows brings life! There are trees (men and women) growing all along this river. There are fishermen catching fish or revealations from this river. Look there is a baptism going on and someone is being overwhelmed in this particular river because this water is washing away carnal understanding. You can tell he is coming up out of the water because you see the water glistening on him. When I have been baptized in this living water it sparkles with light of illumination and enlightenment because I am standing in that light. I can feel the water on me when I am baptized. My whole body is touched by this water. So when I go to baptize,i should take the whole body (church) into this water. So when we preach we can baptize the entire congregation at one time in this spiritual baptism. Let us really baptize the souls of those that seek baptism in the real water.

 

[maryofoxford]

we do both immersion and pouring for baptism. We also will immerse or pour 3 times, in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This is taken from the scriptures and also from Sacred Tradition (2 Thes 2:15)"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." (Note that this is not the traditions of men; there is a difference). The best example of Sacred Tradition, showing what the early Christian practice was, is the Didache, from c.140 AD. (quote) "In regard to Baptism-baptize thus: After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. (understood to mean "moving water") If you have no living water, then baptize in other water; and if you are not able in cold, then in warm. If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." This is a practice that we still do. Adults are submerged 3 times if we have a pool in the church large enough for them (many churches are converting some sort of baptismal font to allow for this),or they stand in water and have it poured over their heads 3 times. Infants in the Roman Catholic churches have water poured over the heads (not over their faces for obvious reasons). I haven't heard of any infant baptisms in the Orthodox churches where they submerged the infants; I'd like to hear from practicing Orthodox Catholics to confirm this practice of submerging infants. Thanks.

If anyone cares to read the Didache in full, they can find it on the internet under that title. "The oldest parts of it are thought to originally be a Jewish work for the instruction of gentile proselytes (non-Jewish Converts) to Judaism."

"In Syria, no later then A.D. 160, and perhaps about A.D. 140, the Jewish "Two ways document" found entrance to Christian circles." Christians added more to it at that time, thus producing the "Didache" as we have it now, "a work for the instruction of catechumens." (Those becoming Christians and studying to enter the Church.)*

* The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1; William A. Jurgens


I find it very odd that people will continually argue over the correct format and meaning of Christian Baptism, while we HAVE an early Christian document for the instruction of those becoming Christians on Baptism and the CORRECT format. NOTE: This is LONG before any church other than the Catholic Church even existed. (Yes, by then the Christian Church was known as the Catholic Church.) There had not yet been any splits in Christ's Church. This is also early enough in time that there were still people around that had listened to the followers of the apostles, and these first Christians would most certainly have refuted this document if it was false; yet there are absolutely no records either refuting it or instructing Christians to be baptized in any other way.

I would encourage any people reading this thread to reread this post and explain why in the world you would dismiss this, early instruction document for Christian baptism, in favor of something different and much newer! This document makes it very plain that water is to be MOVING, either by being poured, or in a river, etc. (The large fonts in Catholic Church's that adults are sometimes baptized in have the water moving at all times that anyone is being baptized, per the instructions of the very first Christian church.) otherwise the water is moving as it is poured over the head. The person must also be baptized in the name of the Father,and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. This is the only correct formula as per the Sacred Scriptures, and the Sacred Traditions (teachings of the apostles given to them by Christ).

I would think that the easiest way to know what Jesus would have you do is to see what the very first Christians did. I'm pretty sure those that died for the faith, and lived shortly after Christ walked this Earth, would have a better shot at being correct than somebody trying to interpret the Bible on their own now.

Peace to you all in Jesus' name please.

 

[vjcoppola]

How long is the Church going to go around and around on this? Nowhere does the Bible command immersion. Nowhere in the Bible does it say one must "be saved" or say that one "is saved" to be baptized. Nowhere does is say you have to feel baptized or look baptized. Come on folks. Why are we battering each other over this? I see several places in these pages that mentions the examples of baptism in Didiche, probably written in the late first century. If that is what the Christians, who actually knew and were taught by the Apostles, were doing why is it wrong now? As a student of church history the only reason I see for this insistance on specific methods of baptism is a stuborn rejection of all things Roman. Protestants and Reformers have gone way overboard in this area. Please before you bash the practices of our fellow brethern over details of baptismal practice, read some history. Read what went on BEFORE the reformation. It isn't even that difficult anymore with all the internet resources available.

Most of the first Christians were Jews. We all know about the problem of circucision vs no circumcision and the Council of Jerusalem in the book of Acts. Circumcision was the way one entered God's covenant of grace. Read it in Genesis, entire households were to be circumsized, even male slaves brought into a household. There are many refferances in the New Testament identifying Baptism as the new way one enters this covenant and just as with circumcision, there are examples a a person AND their household being baptised. Nowhere does it say that the entire household had faith in Jesus or that they had to but they were included in God's covenant of grace. Very practical too. Living in a household headed by a faithful person and being baptised would make it very likely that one would come to faith.

 

[bbbbbbb]

How long is the Church going to go around and around on this? Nowhere does the Bible command immersion. Nowhere in the Bible does it say one must "be saved" or say that one "is saved" to be baptized. Nowhere does is say you have to feel baptized or look baptized. Come on folks. Why are we battering each other over this? I see several places in these pages that mentions the examples of baptism in Didiche, probably written in the late first century. If that is what the Christians, who actually knew and were taught by the Apostles, were doing why is it wrong now? As a student of church history the only reason I see for this insistance on specific methods of baptism is a stuborn rejection of all things Roman. Protestants and Reformers have gone way overboard in this area. Please before you bash the practices of our fellow brethern over details of baptismal practice, read some history. Read what went on BEFORE the reformation. It isn't even that difficult anymore with all the internet resources available.

Most of the first Christians were Jews. We all know about the problem of circucision vs no circumcision and the Council of Jerusalem in the book of Acts. Circumcision was the way one entered God's covenant of grace. Read it in Genesis, entire households were to be circumsized, even male slaves brought into a household. There are many refferances in the New Testament identifying Baptism as the new way one enters this covenant and just as with circumcision, there are examples a a person AND their household being baptised. Nowhere does it say that the entire household had faith in Jesus or that they had to but they were included in God's covenant of grace. Very practical too. Living in a household headed by a faithful person and being baptised would make it very likely that one would come to faith.

This is all well and good, but how do you explain the current trend in Roman Catholicism to baptize by immersion? The Eastern Orthodox Church has been immersing folks "since the beginning" (as they claim). Of course, they also include sprinkling as well and pouring as well as anointing with oil as part of their baptismal rite. I think they try to cover all of the bases.

 

[Albion]

This is all well and good, but how do you explain the current trend in Roman Catholicism to baptize by immersion?

Probably in the same way as we explain the liturgical changes made in the last fifty years--a compulsion to imitate what was thought to be the "original" way of doing things in the church. It doesn't mean that there's any concession being made about the rightness or effectiveness of the way it's been done since the Reformation. You might almost call it a matter of "liturgical fashion."

 

[bbbbbbb]

Probably in the same way as we explain the liturgical changes made in the last fifty years--a compulsion to imitate what was thought to be the "original" way of doing things in the church. It doesn't mean that there's any concession being made about the rightness or effectiveness of the way it's been done since the Reformation. You might almost call it a matter of "liturgical fashion."

That is my perception, as well. And who says the Catholic Church is unchanging?

 

[vjcoppola]

This is all well and good, but how do you explain the current trend in Roman Catholicism to baptize by immersion? The Eastern Orthodox Church has been immersing folks "since the beginning" (as they claim). Of course, they also include sprinkling as well and pouring as well as anointing with oil as part of their baptismal rite. I think they try to cover all of the bases.

I'm pretty sure its always been an option in RCC and they still are sprinkling. I'm in an Anglican CHurch and its always been an option there too. For RCC, Anglican and alot of others the only requirements of a valid baptism is that it is done with water and in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Makes sense to me and is both scriptural and traditional.