What scriptures support Baptism by emersion?

Well, there are verses that imply that baptism is to traditionally follow acceptance of salvation:

Acts 2:37-41 - ... they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, 'Brethren, what shall we do?' And Peter said to them, 'Repent, and be baptised everyone of you ... for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit ... So those who accepted His Word were baptised.

and

Acts 8:36-39 - And as they went along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, 'See, here is water, what is to prevent my being baptised?' And Philip said, 'If you believe with all your heart, you may.'...,and he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down into the water ... and he baptised him.

OTOH, there are some verses that imply that baptism of the whole household (including children) of baptized invidividuals was practiced:

Acts 2:38-39 - And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.

Acts 16:15 - She [Lydia] was baptized, with her household.

Acts 16:33 - Regarding the Philippian jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith the same hour of the night ... he was baptized, with all his family.

1 Cor. 1:16 - I [Paul] did baptize also the household of Stephanas.

Now, for me as a Baptist, my way is baptism after salvation. As a baptist, it's a mandatory practice, and accept it as a requirement for anyone desiring to become a Baptist. But I don't believe it's unbiblical for a non-Baptist church or congregation to practice infant baptism if that is their custom. I don't think that those who are saved and were baptized as children need to be baptized as adults, unless they join a church that practices such.

 

baptism, original word bavptisma, bap'-tis-mah used 22 times in N.T.
immersion, submersion
of calamities and afflictions with which one is quite overwhelmed
of John's baptism, that purification rite by which men on confessing their sins were bound to spiritual reformation, obtained the pardon of their past sins and became qualified for the benefits of the Messiah's kingdom soon to be set up. This was valid Christian baptism, as this was the only baptism the apostles received and it is not recorded anywhere that they were ever rebaptised after Pentecost.
of Christian baptism; a rite of immersion in water as commanded by Christ, by which one after confessing his sins and professing his faith in Christ, having been born again by the Holy Spirit unto a new life, identifies publicly with the fellowship of Christ and the church.


Mt 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Mt 20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.
Mt 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father.
Mt 21:25 The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven, or of men? And they reasoned with themselves, saying, If we shall say, From heaven; he will say unto us, Why did ye not then believe him?


Ac 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
Ac 10:37 That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached;
Ac 13:24 When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of repentance to all the people of Israel.
Ac 18:25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
Ac 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.
Ac 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus


Ro 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life

 

Baptism is spoken of as an act of faith in Colossians. Infant baptism is for the catholic sympathizers. It is wrong, and a violation of Scripture. Leave the perversions to those who don't mind perverting truth (i.e., catholics, presbos, lutherans, etc.).

 

See my references above. Infant baptism is biblically interpretable. We Baptists have simply come to a different conclusion. That does not, however, make infant baptism unbiblical". If it were that clearcut, we'd all be baptizing one way.

 

I think the better question would be "What scriptures support anything other than baptism by immersion?"

 

I know the passages well Johnv. However, none of them even HINT at the baptism of infants. You are just reluctant to indict the catholics on false teaching for some reason.

They teach that a person is "born again" when they have water poured on him at birth. Very scriptural.

As Jude says, they are trees with withering fruit, twice dead, etc.

 

They imply baptism of all in a household of a believer, which would presumably include persons not of the age of accountability.

Actually, you condemned Catholics, Lutherans, and Presbyterians.

Presbyterians VERY CLEARLY teach salvation by faith alone, not by baptism. (Catholics and Lutherans also teach salvation by faith, but folks that are anti catholic and anti lutheran choose to spread a lie rather than accept that they're incorrect). To say that Presbyterians preach anything other than salvation by faith alone shows your clear lack of knowlege about Presbyterians.

This verse has what to do with baptism, since Baptism has nothing to do with salvation?

[ September 16, 2003, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

To the best of my knowlege, the only example of baptism in the NT is by immersiion. We can assume that this is the acceptible form of baptism (which is what I personally believe), but the bible is silent enough on the issue. Hence, we can biblically assert one method, but cannot biblically condemn others (sprinkling, pouring), especially since it is a symbolic act that has no weight on one's salvation or ability to bear spiritual fruit or do good works.

Most Baptist churches offer an alternative to immersion in cases where individuals have a physical informity that impedes the ability to be immersed, so it's clear from our own customs that other modes of baptism are not outrightly condemned.

 

Johnv, this isn't the thread to discuss the bankruptcy of catholicism, but suffice it to say that I have both heard of and seen with my own eyes a catholic priest pour the water on the head of a baby and pronounce that he is born again.

Now, I don't know why you are turning a blind eye to this. I dunno, perhaps you have family that is catholic.

 

Then please refrain from doing so. I noticed how you glossed right over the lutheran and presbyterian issue, though.

 

907 baptizo {bap-tid'-zo}
from a derivative of 911; TDNT - 1:529,92; verb
AV - baptize (76), wash 2, baptist 1, baptized + 2258 1; 80
1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
(strong's number 907)

 

To the best of my knowlege, the only example of baptism in the NT is by immersiion. We can assume that this is the acceptible form of baptism (which is what I personally believe), but the bible is silent enough on the issue. Hence, we can biblically assert one method, but cannot biblically condemn others (sprinkling, pouring), especially since it is a symbolic act that has no weight on one's salvation or ability to bear spiritual fruit or do good works.

Most Baptist churches offer an alternative to immersion in cases where individuals have a physical informity that impedes the ability to be immersed, so it's clear from our own customs that other modes of baptism are not outrightly condemned. </font>[/QUOTE]Friend, the Bible isn't silent about it. As you so noted the only time it speaks of baptism is immersion. Therefore it is definately not silent.

Even the word used means immersion.

I understand that it isn't necessary for salvation but I do believe that when it is possible to do it in the correct manner it should be done.

 

I heard of one case in which a woman in her 90's was told the Gospel and was saved and wanted to be baptised but she was very ill and in fact at death's door. So they dipped her hand in a basin of warm water as a symbolic act of her desire to obey the Scripture and have believer's baptism.

HankD

 

IMHO only baptists have a clue what baptism is for. It is a symbol of a believer's entrance into the New covenant in Christ.

Theological systems which fail to differenciate between the old and new covenants often practice baptism of infants, likening it to circumcision in the O.T.. Sorry--wrong covenant! Israelites entered the Old covenant by birth. Only the second birth brings us into the New covenant.

Immersion seems to fit the picture to me of being buried and rising in newness of life better than other modes.

In Christ,

Tim

 

By the way is "emersion" an electronic form of baptism? Like getting submerged in BB?

 

actually, the Greek baptizo means "to make wet". It implies immersion, but does not mean immersion only.

Don't misread me. I believe that immersion is the appropriate mode of Baptism. But I don't think that other modes of Baptism (sprinkling/pouring) are unbiblical.

 

actually, the Greek baptizo means "to make wet". It implies immersion, but does not mean immersion only.

Don't misread me. I believe that immersion is the appropriate mode of Baptism. But I don't think that other modes of Baptism (sprinkling/pouring) are unbiblical. </font>[/QUOTE]It does not mean to make wet. It means to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge.

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=907

http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=907

http://www.dtl.org/alt/background/baptism.htm

 

actually, the Greek baptizo means "to make wet". It implies immersion, but does not mean immersion only.

Don't misread me. I believe that immersion is the appropriate mode of Baptism. But I don't think that other modes of Baptism (sprinkling/pouring) are unbiblical. </font>[/QUOTE]Even in secular uses it means to dip immerse or wash. If a boat sand they would use the word baptizo. If a person drowned they would use the same word.

 

Since the Bible does not tell us who their family members were, we can't automatically assume that some were children. Since baptism seems to be commanded after salvation, then we have evidence that suggests that no child can be baptized. If a child can't be saved, he shouldn't be baptized. Once he is saved, that is when baptism must take place. Silence on the issue of infant baptism suggests that it was never considered an option, it does not speak in it's favor.

Baptists do teach that baptism symbolizes what took place spiritually and I do tend to agree. I would like to know what scriptures do you use to support this teaching?

~Lorelei