USING HIGH SCHOOL GEOMETRY TO CRITIQUE IMMERSION ONLY BAPTISM

[Not David]

Neither does it have anything to do with salvation.

All water baptism is to get one wet.

So I guess you would not like that I baptize my future baby.

 

[bbbbbbb]

So I guess you would not like that I baptize my future baby.

I should hope you wash your baby on a regular basis. Did you know that many of the monarchs of Europe only encountered water for washing once or twice only in their lives? Queen Isabella of Spain encountered water when she was baptized as an infant and on the day prior to her wedding. Other than that, water washing was considered fit for only peasants and peasants were notorious for swimming in rivers - in the nude.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Obstacles have to be overcome in order to be baptized by immersion.

• Obstacles like finding a suitable water supply, an extra change of clothes, a towel, a place to change, and proper thermal and weather conditions.
• In many cases to render baptism by immersion difficult, if not impracticable in many cases.
• For example, immersion only baptism may be nearly or entirely impossible for desert nomads or Eskimos.
• Some individuals have a natural dread of water immersion.
• Historical female modesty around large crowds of men. Great cultural differences have to be over come for public immersion baptism.
• People might have to travel for many miles together for a human body to be immersed in any natural stream or pool of water.
• Even today practical difficulties can render immersion nearly or entirely impossible for some individuals: for example, people with certain medical conditions—the bedridden; quadriplegics; individuals with tracheotomies or attached to negative or positive pressure ventilators.
• Again, those who have recently undergone certain procedures (such as open-heart surgery) cannot be immersed.
• Or consider those in a hostile setting, such as a Muslim regime, where baptisms must be done in secret, without adequate water for immersion.
• In the NT, Baptism is commanded but immersion is not.
• It is strange that those who make so much of the method of Baptism should make so little of its content.
  
• Physical preparation for baptism was recorded only once: that of Saul of Tarsus. He was told to “arise and be baptized” (Acts 22:16), and he “arose and was baptized” (Acts 9:18). That is the whole record of the ceremony. All other recorded baptismal ceremonies in the NT are of simpler fashion.
• Furthermore, there is no historic commentary on how difficult immersion baptism were in the early church. Additionally, we find very little to no historical pastoral counseling from the early church fathers for those who are psychologically adverse to immersion, feminine modesty or for guidance on how to get to a place suitable for immersion baptism.
• Tension must be resolved between the cumbersonness and difficulty of immersion baptism as practiced by credobaptists and the simplicity of all the baptismal accounts in the NT.
• Why do credobaptists make baptism so difficult?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Obstacles have to be overcome in order to be baptized by immersion.

• Obstacles like finding a suitable water supply, an extra change of clothes, a towel, a place to change, and proper thermal and weather conditions.
• In many cases to render baptism by immersion difficult, if not impracticable in many cases.
• For example, immersion only baptism may be nearly or entirely impossible for desert nomads or Eskimos.
• Some individuals have a natural dread of water immersion.
• Historical female modesty around large crowds of men. Great cultural differences have to be over come for public immersion baptism.
• People might have to travel for many miles together for a human body to be immersed in any natural stream or pool of water.
• Even today practical difficulties can render immersion nearly or entirely impossible for some individuals: for example, people with certain medical conditions—the bedridden; quadriplegics; individuals with tracheotomies or attached to negative or positive pressure ventilators.
• Again, those who have recently undergone certain procedures (such as open-heart surgery) cannot be immersed.
• Or consider those in a hostile setting, such as a Muslim regime, where baptisms must be done in secret, without adequate water for immersion.
• In the NT, Baptism is commanded but immersion is not.
• It is strange that those who make so much of the method of Baptism should make so little of its content.
  
• Physical preparation for baptism was recorded only once: that of Saul of Tarsus. He was told to “arise and be baptized” (Acts 22:16), and he “arose and was baptized” (Acts 9:18). That is the whole record of the ceremony. All other recorded baptismal ceremonies in the NT are of simpler fashion.
• Furthermore, there is no historic commentary on how difficult immersion baptism were in the early church. Additionally, we find very little to no historical pastoral counseling from the early church fathers for those who are psychologically adverse to immersion, feminine modesty or for guidance on how to get to a place suitable for immersion baptism.
• Tension must be resolved between the cumbersonness and difficulty of immersion baptism as practiced by credobaptists and the simplicity of all the baptismal accounts in the NT.
• Why do credobaptists make baptism so difficult?

Actually, Philip and the Ethiopian treasurer managed to perform baptism by immersion in the middle of the desert, so that must not be such an onerous problem after all, is it? And, interestingly, Philip had none of the religious credentials that most denominations require for someone to perform the rite of baptism.

BTW, have you ever considered those poor little infants who caught their death of cold in the middle of winter because they were baptized in an unheated church building in the northern latitudes?

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

And, interestingly, Philip had none of the religious credentials that most denominations require for someone to perform the rite of baptism.

ALL CHRISTIANS HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO BAPTIZE. See my post #56.

BTW, have you ever considered those poor little infants who caught their death of cold in the middle of winter because they were baptized in an unheated church building in the northern latitudes?

This is gibberish.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Actually, Philip and the Ethiopian treasurer managed to perform baptism by immersion in the middle of the desert, so that must not be such an onerous problem after all, is it?

ACTS 8:38-39 THE CREDOBAPTIST DOCTRINE OF DOUBLE DIPPING

This is the most important text for immersionists. However in reality, is what may be the all-time worst argument for immersion only baptism.

The text: 8:38 and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water,

Water reacts very well with gravity. It accumulates where there is an obstruction. Water is always below where you are, so you go down it and come up away from it. Whether this was a river, a creek crossing the road, or a small oasis, the Bible text is obscure. If you go down to a pool of water, it could be shallow or deep. If you go down to a creek, it could be shallow or deep. If a creek crossed the road, then it would probably be shallow. The text is obscure with the amount of water and also the topographical nature of the body of water.

An immersionist will always presuppose this was a body of water that must be at least waist deep. So let’s grant the immersionist the premise that this was a pool of water waist deep.

How do Baptists get immersion from this text? They went down into the water “going under, or submersion” and “they came up out of the water” They resurfaced.

What is the hermeneutical blunder here? MAYBE A SIMPLE PART OF GRAMMAR CALLED A PRONOUN. ….the two Greek verbs which depict movement are third person purals.

and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water."

Whatever Phillip does the Eunuch does…vice versa. If the Eunuch got dunked, Philip got dunk!

According to the immersionist hypothesis of this baptism, both the baptizer and the Baptizee were immersed. Is this sound e

What is Luke trying to convey?

• Duel Immersion of both the baptizer and baptizee or simply that Phillip baptized the Eunuch?
• Is Luke also trying to inform us that dual immersion is prescribed for all Christian to follow henceforth?
• How many Credobaptist preachers go under with the ones being baptized?
• Does Luke really want his readers to believe that Phillip immersed himself first and then the Eunuch?

All Luke is doing is inform us is that the Eunuch was baptized not how!

Credobaptists have been making this lame argument for the past two hundred years and will continue to do so for another two hundred years.

To read immersion baptism into this passage an argument by conjecture, conclusive only to those who already presuppose “baptism always means immersion in the Bible."

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Acts 8:38-39 THE CREDOBAPTIST DOCTRINE OF THE UNDERWATER SOMERSAULT


The text: "and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water"


THREE ACTIONS:
1. They both went down into the water
2. and he baptized him
3. When they came up out of the water

Credobaptists will emphasize #1 as submersion and #3 as egressing from the water. But they will always, always, always omit #2.

If both Phillip and the Eunuch went under the water that would be half of the baptsim and egressing would be the other half. But that is not what the text says. According to the credobaptists immersion means to dip, plunge or submerge. If Phillip and the Eunuch were under the water, how could the Eunuch be dipped while under water? Did he do a somersault under the water?

IS THIS THE CREDOBAPTIST DOCTRINE OF DOUBLE-DOUBLE DIPPING WITH A TWIST?

To read immersion baptism into this passage an argument by conjecture, conclusive only to those who already presuppose “baptism always means immersion in the Bible."

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

ACT 8:38-39 THE CREDOBAPTIST DOCTRINE OF THE TWO FOR ONE DEAL.

The text: "and they both went down into the water, Philip as well as the eunuch, and he baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water"

THREE ACTIONS:
1. They both went down into the water
2. and he baptized him
3. When they came up out of the water

Same argument as in #107 Credobaptists will emphasize #1 as submersion and #3 as egressing from the water. But #2 is not omitted.

THREE ACTIONS:
1. They both went down into the water (one half baptism)
2. and he baptized him (one full baptism)
3. When they came up out of the water (one half baptism)

A great two for one deal!

To read immersion baptism into this passage an argument by conjecture, conclusive only to those who already presuppose “baptism always means immersion in the Bible."

 

[ViaCrucis]

Actually, Philip and the Ethiopian treasurer managed to perform baptism by immersion in the middle of the desert, so that must not be such an onerous problem after all, is it? And, interestingly, Philip had none of the religious credentials that most denominations require for someone to perform the rite of baptism.

BTW, have you ever considered those poor little infants who caught their death of cold in the middle of winter because they were baptized in an unheated church building in the northern latitudes?

Anyone can theoretically administer Baptism. But in ordinary circumstances the Church vests this to ordained ministers of the Church. Also, St. Philip the Deacon, being a deacon, would have had the "religious credentials" to administer Baptism anyway.

While the eunuch may have been immersed, as three-fold immersion is the standard practice of the ancient Church, there's nothing in the text that necessitates that it was by immersion. If there were sufficient water, then we can safely say that it was probably done in the common mode. But the Church has always acknowledged pouring as a completely valid mode of administering Baptism when immersion is not possible. In the Western Church pouring became the common mode of administering Baptism in the middle ages.

The mode of Baptism simply doesn't matter.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Acts 9:18-19 THE CREDOBAPTIST DOCTRINE OF THE INVISIBLE DUNKING TANK

Text “Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, and after taking some food, he regained his strength.”

Paul was on the Damascus Road and Jesus says “Saul, Saul why do you persecute me.” Paul is now blind. Jesus tells Ananias in a vision to go the the HOUSE of Judas on Straight street. Vs. 17 states that Ananias enter the HOUSE and laid hands on Paul and he could see again.

WHAT DOES THE TEXT SAY NEXT? “He got up and was baptized.”

Question: How is it possible to immersed standing up in a house? How is this possible? Unless Paul was immersed in an invisible dunking tank.

Some credobaptists will counter with two objections.

1. Before, Paul got something to eat, he was taken somewhere to be baptized. So in this senerio, it is fair to assume that Paul didn’t take an extra change of clothes so he had to walk back soaking wet before any food or drink was given to him. This then would have been a forced march somewhere to be baptized without any nourishment after not eating for three days. Credobaptists are sure cruel!

2. The second objection is: this is not baptism, but it is baptism of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Paul didn’t have to walk back with soaking clothes. In fact, Paul wasn’t baptized at all! If it were baptism of the Holy Spirit as articulated in Acts 1, we would expect to have Paul speaking in tongues, with a pillar of fire about him. We have none of this. Further, in Acts 22 when Paul comments on this event, we have no reference to Baptism in the Holy Spirit as in Jerusalem, just baptism.

Credobaptists normally will omit commenting on this passage. But when they do, it is fun to see how they try to get around a forced inclusion or exclusion of immersion baptism belief of this text.

To read immersion baptism into this passage an argument by conjecture, conclusive only to those who already presuppose “baptism always means immersion in the Bible."

 

[bbbbbbb]

ALL CHRISTIANS HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE AUTHORITY TO BAPTIZE. See my post #56.

This is gibberish.

As was your previous post. Thank you.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Acts 9:18-19 THE CREDOBAPTIST DOCTRINE OF THE INVISIBLE DUNKING TANK

Text “Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, and after taking some food, he regained his strength.”

Paul was on the Damascus Road and Jesus says “Saul, Saul why do you persecute me.” Paul is now blind. Jesus tells Ananias in a vision to go the the HOUSE of Judas on Straight street. Vs. 17 states that Ananias enter the HOUSE and laid hands on Paul and he could see again.

WHAT DOES THE TEXT SAY NEXT? “He got up and was baptized.”

Question: How is it possible to immersed standing up in a house? How is this possible? Unless Paul was immersed in an invisible dunking tank.

Some credobaptists will counter with two objections.

1. Before, Paul got something to eat, he was taken somewhere to be baptized. So in this senerio, it is fair to assume that Paul didn’t take an extra change of clothes so he had to walk back soaking wet before any food or drink was given to him. This then would have been a forced march somewhere to be baptized without any nourishment after not eating for three days. Credobaptists are sure cruel!

2. The second objection is: this is not baptism, but it is baptism of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, Paul didn’t have to walk back with soaking clothes. In fact, Paul wasn’t baptized at all! If it were baptism of the Holy Spirit as articulated in Acts 1, we would expect to have Paul speaking in tongues, with a pillar of fire about him. We have none of this. Further, in Acts 22 when Paul comments on this event, we have no reference to Baptism in the Holy Spirit as in Jerusalem, just baptism.

Credobaptists normally will omit commenting on this passage. But when they do, it is fun to see how they try to get around a forced inclusion or exclusion of immersion baptism belief of this text.

To read immersion baptism into this passage an argument by conjecture, conclusive only to those who already presuppose “baptism always means immersion in the Bible."

More gibberish.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

More gibberish.

Geez, Let's not get so emotional. I guess you can’t see my usage of the literary device called sarcasm in my last few posts.

SARCASM: saying the opposite of what's true or something outrageous to make a deliberate point that could be understood as ironic. Sarcasm is a figure of speech that expands meaning in language bringing about the concept of the opposite of what is intended.

Political cartoons are construed as sarcasm.

Elijah used sarcasm in I Kings 18:27 At noon Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.”

And Paul used sarcasm in his writing with phases such as “I thank God” in I Cor 1:14 & 14:18.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Geez, Let's not get so emotional. I guess you can’t see my usage of the literary device called sarcasm in my last few posts.

SARCASM: saying the opposite of what's true or something outrageous to make a deliberate point that could be understood as ironic. Sarcasm is a figure of speech that expands meaning in language bringing about the concept of the opposite of what is intended.

Political cartoons are construed as sarcasm.

Elijah used sarcasm in I Kings 18:27 At noon Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said. “Surely he is a god! Perhaps he is deep in thought, or busy, or traveling. Maybe he is sleeping and must be awakened.”

And Paul used sarcasm in his writing with phases such as “I thank God” in I Cor 1:14 & 14:18.

Not emotional at all. I normally would have labelled such a post as being silly, but since you introduced the gibberish word, I have followed suit. I suppose gibberish is in the mind of the reader.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

The intent of this thread is to expose the three errors that Credobaptists make concerning immersion only baptism.

• Every baptism in the Bible was by immersion under water.
• immersion is the only biblical and thus proper mode of baptism.
• Without immersion there is no biblical baptism.

Why is this important? Immersion only baptism endeavors bind the Christian conscience that without immersion baptism, no baptism exists. This is the purpose this thread. Although, other commentators in the Christian Forum will go off in other directions, I am will consistently bring back this thread via post to my intent.

I got boatload more arguments to bring forth for comment. And please comment.

Just wait until I discuss the baptism of the 3,000 in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost …its gonna be a ride.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Not emotional at all. I normally would have labelled such a post as being silly, but since you introduced the gibberish word, I have followed suit. I suppose gibberish is in the mind of the reader.

Perhaps you are correct as that the post was "silly" I shall adjust accordingly. Thank you for this correction.

But what I would like from you is a cogent reply to your comment on #111. Please take some time to read post #56, the inform this community why Christians do not have the authority to baptize. After all you said it gibberish. I am asking you to do your very best here. Or was it plain "silly."

 

[bbbbbbb]

Perhaps you are correct as that the post was "silly" I shall adjust accordingly. Thank you for this correction.

But what I would like from you is a cogent reply to your comment on #111. Please take some time to read post #56, the inform this community why Christians do not have the authority to baptize. After all you said it gibberish. I am asking you to do your very best here. Or was it plain "silly."

Actually, you may be speaking to the wrong person here. I fully believe that each and every Christian does have the authority to baptize. There are, however, various denominations which restrict baptism to particular individuals for various reasons.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

Actually, you may be speaking to the wrong person here. I fully believe that each and every Christian does have the authority to baptize. There are, however, various denominations which restrict baptism to particular individuals for various reasons.

 

[Ain't Zwinglian]

BBBBBB....I sincerely apologize if I misquoted you. God bless you with furthering the kingdom of God.

 

[bbbbbbb]

BBBBBB....I sincerely apologize if I misquoted you. God bless you with furthering the kingdom of God.

Thank you. May God bless you, as well, dear brother.