How can we be sure??

[BobRyan]

That means that for people who want to claim that baptism by immersion is the only way and the Biblical way--and then cite this verse, thinking that it substantiates that view--they're dead wrong about that. It does not substantiate the claim that immersion was used on that occasion.

On the contrary - it proves the immersion point perfectly since all regions had "a cup of water" available (since presumably everyone was able to drink water even if they did not live near Jordan) - so a cup of water for sprinkling/pouring would always be available, (even a well would suffice for a cup)

-- but not all regions had a body of water available for immersion.

The point remains.

 

[Albion]

indeed that is how full body immersion baptism works.

But you folks keep avoiding the real issue here.

Yes, a person who was baptized by total immersion in a river could have walked up the bank of the river afterwards BUT SO ALSO COULD SOMEONE WHO WAS BAPTIZED THERE BY AFFUSION.

The issue is not that immersion is wrong or invalid.

It's that your church's members have claimed that immersion ALONE is proper and Scriptural, and that it is how Jesus certainly was baptized along with other people mentioned in the New Testament.

THOSE claims fail utterly, as I have shown.

 

[Albion]

On the contrary - it proves the immersion point perfectly since all regions had "a cup of water" available for sprinkling/pouring, (even a well would suffice for a cup) -- but not all regions had a body of water available for immersion.

What in the world does owning a cup have to do with this discussion? Nothing. I haven't made any claims about a cup of water.

If you are struggling to make a case that rivers or pools of water were referred to in various Bible passages, and that this wouldn't be needed if affusion were used, since the ceremony could take place almost anywhere, this still isn't any kind of proof of immersion as the ONLY VALID mode of Baptism.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, a person who was baptized by total immersion in a river could have walked up the bank of the river

The text does not say "walking up the hill beside the river"
the text does not say "walking up the bank of the river"

Rather it talks about coming up out of the water.

And even you would admit that this description is perfectly consistent with full immersion water baptism.

My point was that if what we needed was "John came up to Jesus and poured a cup of water on him while he stood on the bank of the river" -- there was a way to say it.

 

[BobRyan]

That means that for people who want to claim that baptism by immersion is the only way and the Biblical way--and then cite this verse, thinking that it substantiates that view--they're dead wrong about that. It does not substantiate the claim that immersion was used on that occasion.

On the contrary - it proves the immersion point perfectly since all regions had "a cup of water" available (since presumably everyone was able to drink water even if they did not live near Jordan) - so a cup of water for sprinkling/pouring would always be available, (even a well would suffice for a cup)

-- but not all regions had a body of water available for immersion.

The point remains.

What in the world does owning a cup have to do with this discussion? Nothing. I haven't made any claims about a cup of water.

???

 

[Albion]

The text does not say "walking up the hill beside the river"
the text does not say "walking up the bank of the river"

Rather it talks about coming up out of the water.

So you're saying that he baptized himself and when he was done, he came back up from under the water's surface like a drowning man breaking the surface. Not likely. And you still have not shown that immersion is the only proper mode of baptism.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
The text does not say "walking up the hill beside the river"
the text does not say "walking up the bank of the river"

Rather it talks about coming up out of the water.

So you're saying that he baptized himself

huh??

 

[BobRyan]

And you still have not shown that immersion is the only proper mode of baptism.

on the contrary - it is the only method that symbolizes death burial and resurrection.

Rom 6:
What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? 2 Far from it! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? 3 Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? 4 Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too may walk in newness of life.

Baptism symbolizes that death burial and resurrection -- because it is believer's baptism via full water immersion

Sprinkling and pouring are more like "anointing" -

But full water baptism is - death, burial and resurrection symbolism.

 

[Albion]

Here, by the way, is the the Benson Commentary on the verse in question:

Went up straightway out of the water — Or, as the original, ανεβη απο του υδατος, rather signifies, ascended from the water, namely, went up from the banks of Jordan.

 

[Albion]

on the contrary - it is the only method that symbolizes death burial and resurrection.

That is good symbolism, and for one more time, immerse if you choose to do your baptisms that way. But there's no reason to consider that to be obligatory or, for that matter, that the symbolism is completely lost with a baptism as most churches perform it these days. We also say that it represents one's sins being washed away.

In fact, to carry out the symbolism as the Eastern churches do it, triple immersion should be used. I take it that your church doesn't do that.

 

[BobRyan]

Here, by the way, is the the Benson Commentary on the verse in question:

Went up straightway out of the water — Or, as the original, ανεβη απο του υδατος, rather signifies, ascended from the water, namely, went up from the banks of Jordan.

I like this " Went up straightway out of the water — Or, as the original, ανεβη απο του υδατος, rather signifies, ascended from the water, " -- as it is perfectly consistent with full immersion and every agrees on that point.

But to say "it means nothing more than walking up a hillside or walking up a bank beside a river" seems to insert limits where none is there. The text is exactly what one expects for coming up "out of the water".

If you were never 'in the water' - then you never come up out of the water.

 

[BobRyan]

In fact, to carry out the symbolism as the Eastern churches do it, triple immersion should be used. I take it that your church doesn't do that.

The Bible does not call for it.

 

[Albion]

I like this " Went up straightway out of the water — Or, as the original, ανεβη απο του υδατος, rather signifies, ascended from the water, " -- as it is perfectly consistent with full immersion and every agrees on that point.

But to say "it means nothing more than walking up a hillside or walking up a bank beside a river" seems to insert limits where none is there.

Very well. Let's agree that it means he walked up the riverbank in order to leave the river. You still cannot use this wording to prove that he had been totally under the waters, which is what has been claimed.

 

[Albion]

The Bible does not call for it.

Just as it also does not call for single immersion.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Just like there is only one gospel and one Truth, there is only one correct baptism. Ephesians 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism

 

[Sparta]

Making a decision to accept Jesus and be "Born again" to leave our old life of sin to walk with Jesus in a path of righteousness

God does not required you to sign in blood your promise that you will be good, before He saves you.
The NT says that the "UNGODLY", are saved, not the godly.
So, when God saves the ungodly, they of themselves are just as ungodly.
The change is in the SONSHIP status and in the Spirit.


So, any teaching that maintains that being good enough for God to accept keeps you saved, denies God's Grace by trying to replace it with self effort.

Maybe you have never realized or been taught that Salvation, is a GIFT.
See, Christ on the Cross is not earned by you, as you seem to think and teach....but rather, Christ on the Cross is God's GIFT to the ungodly, who dont deserve this precious blood, yet, God's love makes it available to all who will believe and thereby be forgiven all sin and then become a SON of God.

How we behave later, happens AFTER we have already become a SON of God.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

God does not required you to sign in blood your promise that you will be good, before He saves you.
The NT says that the "UNGODLY", are saved, not the godly.
So, when God saves the ungodly, they of themselves are just as ungodly.
The change is in the SONSHIP status and in the Spirit.


So, any teaching that maintains that being good enough for God to accept keeps you saved, denies God's Grace by trying to replace it with self effort.

Maybe you have never realized or been taught that Salvation, is a GIFT.
See, Christ on the Cross is not earned by you, as you seem to think and teach....but rather, Christ on the Cross is God's GIFT to the ungodly, who dont deserve this precious blood, yet, God's love makes it available to all who will believe and thereby be forgiven all sin and then become a SON of God.

How we behave later, happens AFTER we have already become a SON of God.

I find this very sad that churches are teaching this.

What does the bible say?

Eph 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God,

We are saved through our faith as it is God's gift to give (or not).

When you are faithful to someone do you obey what they ask or disobey?

Jesus said IF you love Me, keep My commandments John 14:15, John 15:10, 1 John 5:3. God tells us who He shows mercy to right in the commandments Deut. 20:6

We are saved by Gods grace, but we are judged through our actions.

2 Cor 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.

According to scripture God's saints have both the faith in Jesus and keep God's commandments Revelations 14:12

Jesus said: Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

As you can see what we do matters. Anyone can say anything, but when we truly love our Savior we are going to want to obey Him. The bible does not teach that everyone will be saved. One of the last verses in the bible before the Revelations of Jesus Christ says:

Revelations 22:14 Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.

The teaching that we can do whatever we want as long as we believe in God and still be saved is not biblical. Jesus died to save us from our sins. True repentance means turning from sin. Sin is lawlessness and breaking the commandments of God. Jesus provides us with the Holy Spirit to help us obey John 14:15-18, Acts 5:32 but it's not biblical to say we can do whatever we want because Jesus died for us. If that was the case Jesus did not need to make that sacrifice. Jesus came to this earth to give us humans a second chance. He was our example to follow. God bless!

 

[ViaCrucis]

The Bible does not call for it.

It also doesn't call for single immersion. But here we are.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[BobRyan]

It also doesn't call for single immersion. But here we are.

-CryptoLutheran

It's pretty clear in Jesus' case - it was once.

But this is not a detail I would get a lot of concern over if someone said "Hey I would like to be dipped 3 or 4 or 5 times during my baptism"

 

[BobRyan]

I like this " Went up straightway out of the water —..." -

Very well. Let's agree that it means he walked up the riverbank

I said "A" and you say "B"

Does not sound like agreement.

In the Bible he is in the water. In your version he is standing on the river bank or walking up a hill.