I've always been taught that the eunuch was immersed based on the phrases, "down into" and "up out of".
Meaning the baptizee must go "down into" the water and come "up out of" it.
But the use of "both" and "they" going down and coming up out is confusing.
Phillip is said to have gone down and come up as well.
Obviously he wasn't being baptized; he was the baptizer.
So are these prepositional phrases indicating immersion or just that they went down into an area where there was water and they used some of it for baptism and they came back up to the road?
*Something I just thought about after I reread the bolded phrases was the ordering of the passage.
1) both went down into the water
2) Philip baptized him
3) both came up out of the water
Now I'm not sure at all why immersion is read into this passage. Ahhh!
Was this baptism by immersion?
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Isaiah40:28, Feb 29, 2008.
Page 1 of 3
-
-
-
-
To nit-pick is to nit-pick, and I don't have lice.
Sprinkle? Not! -
But these phrases "down into" and "up out of" are used by Baptists to show the validity of immersion are they not? -
Another person mentioned the meaning of the word. It means "dip." I'll go with that though I'm not a legalist to say that it is the only valid mode. It's like saying that communion must be a big dinner instead of the little crackers and tiny cups.
I can see why pouring or sprinkling would be preferred for those who are bed-ridden or cannot otherwise be immersed. -
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
That's really all the evidence you need. -
The phrase "down into the water" is not here used as an equivalent for "baptize" (as you are trying to make it out to be). If it were, then the passage would be redundant, saying "they baptized (went down into the water) so that he could be baptized."
The point of "down into the water" is that there was no way to baptize without both of them going "down into the water." That is because in order to "baptize" there had to be enough water to "go down into." Sprinkling or pouring would not need a situation where they could "go down into the water." -
I'm asking a question about what I was taught and what is put forward by Baptists today.
That's what I'm trying to figure out. -
Second, the phrases certainly teach attendant circumstances that are necessary for baptism. There was no reason for Philip and the eunuch to "go down into the water" if sprinkling or pouring was going to be used to baptize. They went down into the water because that was the only way to get into a position to baptize the eunuch. They could not baptize him without going down into the water.
So again, "down into the water" is not baptism, since as you rightly pointed out, PHilip also went down into the water. You seemed, in your first post, to be trying to equate "down into the water" with baptism, and I have never seen a Baptist make that argument. The argument is that they went down into the water because that was the only way that they could immerse the eunuch. And it is an argument that has no real refutation that doesn't involve special pleading.
But the phrases certainly and without question indicate that immersion was biblical baptism since the phrases describe what was necessary to get into a place where baptism could be carried out. -
I'd like to counter that argument.
In the passage I've quoted, the road is where Phillip speaks to the eunuch.
Then when they leave the road to go to the water, they are said to go "down into the water".
The road was higher than the water, so Phillip and the eunuch went down to where the water was accessible. They both walk into the water, Phillip leans down, scoops up some water into his hand and pours it over the eunuch.
Then they both walk out of the water, back up to where the chariot sat waiting on the road.
I don't see the phrases "down into" and "up out of" necessitating baptism by immersion only. -
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Going down into the water and coming out of the water is simply describing how they got into a body of water where the eunuch could be immersed. -
What you describe here going be accomplished simply by going down beside the water, not "into" it. That is not what the text says. -
I'm suggesting a way in which it would still be necessary to go "down into the water" even if immersion wasn't what was intended. -
Baptist Believer Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
However, it could also be done by standing in the water as well with minimal effort needed. -
Leaning over the side of the bank without falling head in, to scoop water so that you can carry it to pour it over someone's head is a bit unwieldy.
Stepping down in together makes it easier to scoop and pour if that is the intention and can be done with simply getting your feet wet.
That's all I'm suggesting.
The phrases by themselves do not limit the the action of sprinkling or pouring which was what I was taught and what is argued here and elsewhere. -
I think you are stretching in the worst kind of way here to avoid what the text says.
-
I'm questioning a line of argumentation, which is: it must be immersion since it says they went "down into" and "came out of".
You apparantly subscribe to that argument. I don't think I do anymore.
You can say "baptizo means immerse and that's why they had to go down into the water".
Fine, that's makes sense.
Arguing the negative, that it cannot support pouring or sprinkling because the phrases only lend themselves to immersion is simply not true.
Yet Baptists do it. -
As Baptist Believer stated, the mode isn't in the the fact of the candidate and administrator getting into the water, it's in the meaning of the word baptism.
Here are two links discussing the meaning of the word baptizo. One is from a Reformed source. Baptists tend to exclude any meaning for the word other than "dip." I'm a dunker myself, but as I said, I'm not legalistic about it.
http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=907
http://www.wrs.edu/Materials_for_Web_Site/Courses/Theology_4/Chapter_8-Mode_Baptism.pdf
Page 1 of 3