Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Baptizo has a narrow and a wide meaning in Scripture. I take the wide meaning and you take the narrow meaning. And that is okay. The narrow meaning would mean "to immerse" and the wide meaning would mean "to wash" and also "to immerse" depending on context. Luke 11:38 the Pharisee was astonished that Jesus didn't ceremonially "wash" his hands before dinner. Baptizo is used in this passage. Likewise, in Mark 7:4, the disciples were criticized for not ceremonially "washing" their hand after coming from the market. Baptizo is used there also. All major English translations of Scripture reflect "Baptizo" can mean "to wash" in both these contexts.Sorry my friend, I cant see your reasoning.
That is too much of a bifurcation because the word means both wash and dip (for the purpose of washing). And there simply is no verse nor any passage in the New Testament that asserts that baptism necessitates submersion in water. One may choose to immerse, or to submerge and to do so in still or running water, using a bath, pool, or using a river or stream. One may equally choose to use water from a river or stream or to use water from a pool or lake or bath. Holy Tradition does not demand a river and submersion, not does Holy Tradition demand submersion in a pool, bath, or lake. Catholics use both immersion/submersion and pouring from either still or running water.Baptizo has a narrow and a wide meaning in Scripture. I take the wide meaning and you take the narrow meaning. And that is okay. The narrow meaning would mean "to immerse" and the wide meaning would mean "to wash" and also "to immerse" depending on context. Luke 11:38 the Pharisee was astonished that Jesus didn't ceremonially "wash" his hands before dinner. Baptizo is used in this passage. Likewise, in Mark 7:4, the disciples were criticized for not ceremonially "washing" their hand after coming from the market. Baptizo is used there also. All major English translations of Scripture reflect "Baptizo" can mean "to wash" in both these contexts.
Hard core immersionists state....in both Luke and Mark....Jesus and the disciples "immersed" their hands. Hence they have a narrow understanding of the word "baptizo." For the immersionist, baptizo can never mean "to wash" for if it did, one could wash there hands through sprinkling or pouring.
This is where we depart ways. May God bless you at CF.
Correct. No command for any mode. All administration passages in the Book of Acts are descriptive. No prescriptive passages. The mode falls under Christian liberty.And there simply is no verse nor any passage in the New Testament that asserts that baptism necessitates submersion in water.
No, the process of purification, which is all Mikveh really is, is well documented in the scriptures. It is found throughout Leviticus and Numbers. Please look back and understand that I am primarily saying that it is what would make baptism a familiar purification process to 1st century Jews. From that perspective it does not even matter if it is entirely extra-biblical, what matters is that the process of water purification would have been something that 1st century Jews did often.The practice of Mikvah "washing" or "baptism" is extra Biblical material and is not to be used to interpret Scripture.
In the most base meaning of the word, yes, but in actual context that is not accurate.Contextual a mikvah in the OT is just a container for holding any amount water.
Irrelevant. The Bible is a single body of scripture, separating them from one another is not possible.There is no NT usage of the word "Mikvah."
I am not Baptist or Evangelical, so their perspective does not really impact my beliefs me. Sometimes the beliefs will match up, of course. But I do think that texts such as the Didache are very important as they can show us what was going on in the Church at that time - some of the earliest writings we have.Baptists and American evangelicals are real big on Sola Scriptura....except when it comes to baptism as they quote both the Didache and Jewish writings of the Second and Third Centuries (CE). All extra Biblical materials.
100% agree, that is probably the most important part of what you wrote in this thread. They are simply not the same thing, nor meant to be the same thing. They are, however, both purification processes, albeit with entirely different reasons and end results. But it is supremely helpful to understand the culture and society that the Baptism ritual developed in and out of.There are no promises attached to the Mikvah washings, or other NT ceremonial washing as in Luke 11:28 and Mark 7:4.....it is just water and no baptism.
I agree 100%.That is too much of a bifurcation because the word means both wash and dip (for the purpose of washing). And there simply is no verse nor any passage in the New Testament that asserts that baptism necessitates submersion in water.
Irrelevant. The Bible is a single body of scripture, separating them from one another is not possible.
I disagree that they should be parsed into separate scriptures, to do so risks elevating one above the rest. The body of Scripture as a whole should be used to interpret the whole, one is not elevated above the other.I disagree. From the point of view of Christianity the Old Testament is interpreted through the lens of the New Testament and the New Testament is interpreted though the lens provided by the life and teachings of Jesus.
Indeed it is.The supreme revelation of God is the Incarnation.
I disagree.I disagree that they should be parsed into separate scriptures, to do so risks elevating one above the rest. The body of Scripture as a whole should be used to interpret the whole, one is not elevated above the other.
OK, I can live with thatI disagree.
100%I disagree. From the point of view of Christianity the Old Testament is interpreted through the lens of the New Testament and the New Testament is interpreted though the lens provided by the life and teachings of Jesus. The supreme revelation of God is the Incarnation.
The question would than be which is the right one and which is the wrong one.That's wrong. One needs to be baptized in water validly once.
Which one is right?Yes. Baptism is not supposed to be repeated. Indeed thats why the Nicene Creed says “i confess one baptism for the remission of sins”
Where are there Biblical examples of threefold immersions since the example of baptism being like Christ's going into the tomb was one time?The Orthodox baptize both infants and everyone else by threefold full immersion, one immersion in the name of each member of the Trinity. It is possible to safely baptize an infant through full immersion and our clergy has multiple techniques for doing that.
The only case where we would not do that would be if someone being baptized had a tracheotomy or other life-sustaining medical intervention that would make full immersion dangerous, in which case some alternative approach could be used.
John 4:53 Then the father realized that this was the exact time at which Jesus had said to him, “Your son will live.” So he and his whole household believed.The Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Church of the East have always baptized infants, children and adults via threefold full immersion, and this was the case well before the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. There is also strong reason to believe the Roman Church once did this; I would speculate that one reason why they moved away from full immersion involved logistical headaches when baptizing adult women (the Eastern Orthodox historically used deaconesses to go down into the water with women). While unfortunately we do not currently have any Assyrian members (so regarding the Church of the East I suppose you will have to take my word for it, although I can get you in touch with Assyrian clergy), my beloved friends @HTacianas @FenderTL5 and @prodromos can confirm Eastern Orthodox baptismal practices, and my beloved Coptic and Armenian friends @dzheremi and @Tigran1245 can confirm Oriental Orthodox baptismal practices. The Coptic Orthodox are particularly strict about triple immersion.
These churches (at least the Eastern Orthodox and the Coptic and Syriac Orthodox, but I would assume the rest) also immediately confirm the baptized and baptism and confirmation normally precedes the Eucharist, and thus infants and all other baptized persons usually receive their first communion on the day of their baptism. Like with full immersion baptism, the method of providing the Eucharist is safe for infants.
Scriptural texts which refer to entire households being baptized, along with the statement of our Lord “Suffer the little ones to come to me” in combination with the history of the Eastern churches, in particular, the long history of full immersion of infants and children, the credobaptist position less than tenable, since a major credobaptist claim is that baptisms are not viable unless performed via full immersion (which would include my own, for I was baptized in the Methodist Church via aspersion), and this I believe led to the belief that the early church did not baptize children, but the scriptural text does not make such an assertion. In particular, given the benefits ascribed to Baptism and the Eucharist, and our Lord’s directive to suffer the little ones to come to Him, the way to do that is clearly via Baptism and the Eucharist.
My dear friend @Ain't Zwinglian has done superb work on the problem of credobaptism, which exists even in some denominations which officially reject it, such as among the Methodists (there is even a term for Credobaptist leaning Methodist elders, Methobaptists). Since the UMC Book of Discipline requires the baptism of infants, these elders seek to put up road blocks such as only offering infant baptism at certain times of year. This is a direct contradiction to John Wesley’s faith, for John and Charles Wesley were committed Anglicans who loved the Book of Common Prayer, and the Church of England always baptized infants.
As an aside, the Book of Discipline and the faith of John Wesley are both being ignored and contradicted by the pro-homosexual faction which has seized control following the adoption of the Traditional Plan in 2018 using Covid-19 as a pretext and which has treated traditional parishes much worse than the Episcopal Church, particularly when one considers the ideal set by the ELCA and especially the PCUSA with its Gracious Dismissal initiative, which sought to, in many cases successfully, persuade parishes to remain voluntarily.
Jesus was not left partially exposed to the light in His burial so was totally covered.Jesus was not buried in the ground and immersed with dirt. The women in the morning didn’t go to the tomb of Jesus with shovels, picks, and a wheel barrow to dig up the body of Jesus. This is not a picture of immersion baptism. When credo’s state this is a picture of immersion baptism, they are confusing modern burial practices with ancient burial practices.
Critical to how Credobaptists justify “immersion only baptism” is specifically the word “buried.” It is used only twice in the NT and only by Paul. Normally immersionists will use the word “picture” to describe “burial” as going under the water.” And from the analogy of the “picture” of burial, come to the conclusion of the mode of immersion baptism only.
“To bury” refers to any process in which we place human remains in their final resting place.
We have to make a distinction between modern western and ancient mid-eastern burial practices. In the ancient middle east, it was common for prominent people to be buried in a tomb. The Egyptian pharaohs were buried in their pyramids. Abraham was buried in a cave. King David was buried in a tomb in Jerusalem. John’s the Baptist body was “buried” in a tomb. The raising of Lazarus was from a tomb. And Jesus was buried a tomb.
Your hermenuetical blunder here is this: A distinction must be made between what baptism accomplishes (Romans 6) and how baptism is to be administered (All the texts in the Book of Acts showing examples of baptism). Romans 6 is not a text on how to administer baptism.
Baptism in the Greek means immersion or totally surrounded, Jesus and the others were totally surrounded by earthen material (stone or dirt.Jesus was not buried in the ground and immersed with dirt. The women in the morning didn’t go to the tomb of Jesus with shovels, picks, and a wheel barrow to dig up the body of Jesus. This is not a picture of immersion baptism. When credo’s state this is a picture of immersion baptism, they are confusing modern burial practices with ancient burial practices.
Critical to how Credobaptists justify “immersion only baptism” is specifically the word “buried.” It is used only twice in the NT and only by Paul. Normally immersionists will use the word “picture” to describe “burial” as going under the water.” And from the analogy of the “picture” of burial, come to the conclusion of the mode of immersion baptism only.
“To bury” refers to any process in which we place human remains in their final resting place.
We have to make a distinction between modern western and ancient mid-eastern burial practices. In the ancient middle east, it was common for prominent people to be buried in a tomb. The Egyptian pharaohs were buried in their pyramids. Abraham was buried in a cave. King David was buried in a tomb in Jerusalem. John’s the Baptist body was “buried” in a tomb. The raising of Lazarus was from a tomb. And Jesus was buried a tomb.
Your hermenuetical blunder here is this: A distinction must be made between what baptism accomplishes (Romans 6) and how baptism is to be administered (All the texts in the Book of Acts showing examples of baptism). Romans 6 is not a text on how to administer baptism.
We need to take all the baptism recordings and put them together to get a complete picture.The sequence: A) Jesus was baptized. 2) He came out of the water. Coming out of the water was done AFTER Jesus was baptized. Two separate completed actions.
Immersionists do injustice to the text and want to combine these actions as if Matthew were saying: Jesus during the process of being baptized came out of the water and then and only then was baptism was completed. But this is not what the text says.
Coming out of the water simply means Jesus went to the shore after he was baptized. This is what the plain text says.
Paul was baptized in a standing position. See post #33.Where do you find it stated water was sprinkled on the person at baptism?
Which one is right?
Baby baptism is not adult believer immersion baptism, so is baby baptism real baptism?
Where are there Biblical examples of threefold immersions since the example of baptism being like Christ's going into the tomb was one time?
We do not know if babies were considered part of a man’s household. Scripture talks about whole households believing, but babies cannot “believe”.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?