Options in Baptism

Agreed.

One missionary told us that the locals where he was serving required baptizing by putting one finger on the top of the head of the candidate and "pushing" them straight down into the water.

Apparently this solved the problem of the baptizer possibly having to hold a woman that was not his wife.

HankD

 

A biblical case for baptism by pouring:

Prophecy:
Joe 2:28
And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions:

Jesus commenting on the coming fulfillment:
Ac 1:5
For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Explicit fulfillment of prophecy:
Acts 2:14-16 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words: For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third hour of the day. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel;

-----

The greek baptizo does not necessarily mean immersion, it can just mean washing:

Mr 7:4
And when they come from the market, except they wash(baptizo), they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing(baptizo) of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

 

Baptism has its origin in the mikvah of Judaism (practiced at the time of Christ) which is always total immersion.

From Judaism 101 http://www.ou.org/about/judaism/m.htm


Notice the reference to "living waters".


HankD

 

Well, if we want to take our clue from rabbinic Judaism I guess we should be baptized in the nude.

BTW, our little baptist tubs do not even come close to qualifying as kosher mikvaot.

 

Agreed with Dr. Bob, but I'd add "SUBJECT: Believer only" to counter our paedo brethren. While Reformed, I'm a strict immersionist as well.

 

Regarding the "person"

Follow this through...If we regard the great commission as applying to all Christians (...Go make disciples..of all nations... Matthew 28:19) then not only clergy is to participate in baptism but all believers.

At the church I attend, we have believer participation, the recently saved person is sometimes baptised by the person God used to bring them to Christ.

Rob

 

Timothy,

Good post on "baptizo", pouring, etc.

I believe immersion was the mode used in the first century church and is the most appropriate one for baptism, and yet I also believe the Bible allows for other modes.

In addition to your examples, I would add: Hebrews 9:10, where the word for "washings" is used to include Old Testament rituals of sprinkling. I've mentioned this verse a couple of times on this forum, but no one has commented on this yet, as far as I know.

 

The word baptizo was not translated by the English translators, but is shown as baptism in most cases.

It is interesting that the Greek word baptizo is common to the dry cleaning and dying industry in Greece to-day. You would be somewhat disappoited if you offered clothing for dying or cleaning and it was only sprinkled or poured upon. It has one meaning and one meaning only, to submerse.

The Church of England, at the beginning, immersed infants for baptism. Even Queen Elizabeth I was immersed. The mode of baptism in the C of E only changed when the Scottish Presbyterians took power in the House of Commons for a brief period.

There to this day baptismal tanks in many old Anglican Churches, under the floor near the pulpit area. If an adult convert to Anglicanism requests immersion it will be followed. Many Anglican converts on the mission field were immersed.

So, it is clear the meaning of the word baptism. They just have the wrong candidates when they "baptize" infants.

I don't think any other mode is valid. They just don't show the significance of baptism; the death, burial and resurrection to newness of life.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Originally posted by Jim1999:
The word baptizo was not translated by the English translators, but is shown as baptism in most cases.
...
It has one meaning and one meaning only, to submerse.

Note how baptizo is not translated as baptise or immerse in the following popular English translations:

Mark 7
4   and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of (1) cups and pitchers and copper pots.) (NASB)

Mark 7
4When they come from the marketplace they do not eat unless they wash. And they observe many other traditions, such as the washing of cups, pitchers and kettles.[1] ) (NIV)

Mark 7
4and when they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash.[1] And there are many other traditions that they observe, such as the washing of cups and pots and copper vessels and dining couches.[2] ) (ESV)

So by maintaining that baptizo can only mean immersion you oppose the best scholarship of our age.

 

We are talking about the ordinance of baptism.

As to the meaning of the word, don't argue with me, take that argument up with the Greeks. It is their language, not mine.

So far as the best scholars are concerned, some of the "best" reformed scholars are sprinklers of infants...I question their scholarship. Try Baptist scholars.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Jim,

The closest I could imagine to purely Baptist translation in the HCSB, which renders it this way:

Mark
7:4 When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they have washed. And there are many other customs they have received and keep, like the washing of cups, jugs, copper utensils, and dining couches. ) (HCSB)

They, too, allow that sometimes baptizo is best translated as just "washing".

 

What would biblically prevent a believer from baptizing another believer? If a father wanted to baptize his own children upon their confession, is their any scripture that would forbid him?

Here is a scenerio. Say that a believer has baptized one that he just witnessed to as in the case with Philip and the eunuch. The new convert then seeks to join himself to the local body of believers down the street. Would or should his baptism by his fellow believer be sufficient?

 

Grace,
Not to question the spiritual validity of the act, but would it meet the requirements of a local church for membership? Some churches accept letters from other churches to validate baptism and good standing, but say someone was baptized in the back garden swimming pool by another believer, who would validate the act? Who witnessed the event?

That would be my only question. I don't know why it would have to be a member of the clergy to perform the baptism.

Cheers,

Jim

 

if it is accepted that the word “wash” in Mark 7 means to sprinkle, then it must be applied across the board leaving the meticulous Pharisees simply sprinkling their unclean hands, when it is a well established fact that they dipped them.

F. F. Bruce comments; “No one who knows anything about the textual position in Mark 7:4, or who knows the meaning of the Greek word ‘Kline,’ would put any faith in this argument against immersion.”

 

if it is accepted that the word “wash” in Mark 7 means to sprinkle, then it must be applied across the board leaving the meticulous Pharisees simply sprinkling their unclean hands, when it is a well established fact that they dipped them.

F. F. Bruce comments; “No one who knows anything about the textual position in Mark 7:4, or who knows the meaning of the Greek word ‘Kline,’ would put any faith in this argument against immersion.” </font>[/QUOTE]I'm not arguing for sprinkling, but for pouring.

BTW, if current orthodox Jewish practice is any indication, and I think it is, ritual handwashing is accomplished via pouring. I know, for in days gone by I did it myself thousands of times

In any event, I don't see what kline/table has to do with anything, I'm not basing my argument on that.

 

If baptism is symbolic of the death, burial, and ressurrection of Christ (and it is) then:

Backward. Lowering someone or putting someone into a burial place face forward is just too unnatural to even be considered.

Once, unless Christ was buried more than once and I missed it somewhere.

I've never heard of anypone burying themselves but it doesn't have to be a professional mortician either. Any mature Christian who knows what they are doing could do it.

How much of the body should be buried? I am going with the idea that all of it should be buried.

Doesn't matter

 

Mark 7:4 (KJVSL) And &lt;kai&gt; [when they come] from &lt;apo&gt; the market &lt;agora&gt;, except &lt;ean me&gt; they wash &lt;baptizo&gt;, they eat &lt;esthio&gt; not &lt;ou&gt;. And &lt;kai&gt; many &lt;polus&gt; other things &lt;allos&gt; there be &lt;esti&gt;, which &lt;hos&gt; they have received &lt;paralambano&gt; to hold &lt;krateo&gt;, [as] the washing &lt;baptismos&gt; of cups &lt;poterion&gt;, and &lt;kai&gt; pots &lt;xestes&gt;, &lt;kai&gt; brasen vessels &lt;chalkion&gt;, and &lt;kai&gt; of tables &lt;kline&gt;. {pots: sextarius is about a pint and an half} {tables: or, beds}

Just wanted to add, while the Jews these days do purify their hands by pouring, they immerse new dishes and flatware in an actual kosher mikvah before use. As far as tables used for food preparation go, they are kashered by pouring boiling water on them.