After 25 Years a Baptist

[Smoky]

Often you see posts where people state that they were baptised as infants or sprinkled or poured by other denominations and then, when they finally come to the truth, agree to be baptised the "scriptural way", by immersion. Here is an interesting link about a pastor, who being a baptist for 25 years, was asked to write a book solidifying immersion as the only possible scriptural method. When he began to study the subject intensively for his book, to his dismay, he found out that he was the one who needed to change his long standing position. I think this link gives a pretty good scriptural justification for sprinkling or pouring: http://truthinheart.com/EarlyOberlinCD/CD/Doctrine/Baptism.htm

 

[Abiyah]

I, like many others, do not have the time or desire
to sit down and read pages and pages of some
writer with whom I am fairly sure to agree and far
less to read the writings of someone with whom I
am fairly sure not to agree. However, with a very
brief glance at this excessively long treatise, it
appears that the writer never considered, as
usual, what Jews did and do but based his
suppositions upon the few mentions of baptism
in the Bible and upon what he and others merely
think may have been done.

He also ignores bodies of water on the border of
Jerusalem and those within the city and the
surrounding area, called (singularly) mikveh (or
mikvah).

Jews do not and did not sprinkle themselves but
immersed themselves.

 

[Smoky]

I, like many others, do not have the time or desire
to sit down and read pages and pages of some
writer with whom I am fairly sure to agree and far
less to read the writings of someone with whom I
am fairly sure not to agree

Thanks Abiyah, I'm not asking or expecting you or anyone else to read it. However the information you acquired from your "brief glance" is surely indicative of someone who doesn't have much time to study. I passed this link along for people who were interested in acquiring more than just a one sided view about the subject and didn't mind putting a little effort into seeing why other people believe differently.

 

[Abiyah]

8o) I don't mind if you have that opinion of me. 8o)
Actually, I love to study the Bible and spend many
hours weekly in pursuit of biblical knowledge and
also take three classes each week in this pursuit.
I have also studied this subject specifically and
did not draw the same conclusions you have.

Perhaps what I wrote offended you. If it did, I
sincerely apologize; that certainly was not my
intention. I was merely stating an opinion just as
you did. 8o) May the Lord bless you, also, in
your pursuite of knowledge of His Word.

 

[SolaScriptura in 2003]

Did you hear about the guy who was burried by having dirt sprinkled on his head?

If anyone wants to read some real baptist scholarship on the subject, I suggest John Gill's Exposition of Mark chapter 7 in which he proves that the Greek word baptizo means immersion. Those who teach that baptizo doesn't mean immersion try to make a case out of Mark 7:4 because the King James translates the word baptizo as "wash" in that place concerning the traditions of the Jews in the "washing" of beds and so forth. John Gill, however, shows that although the KJV may translate the word baptizo as "wash" in this place it still means "immerse" and that in actuality Mark 7:4 strengthens the fact that the word means "immerse," seeing as how the traditional "washings" to which Jesus refers were actually immersions. He, of course, cites rabbinical sources.

http://www.freegrace.net/gill/Mark/Mark_7.htm

To see the Hebrew and Greek words in Hebrew/Greek character you will need the OLBHEB and OLBGRK fonts which can be downloaded at
http://www.fratreslucisbr.hpg.ig.com.br/sociedade/28/olbheb.TTF
http://www.fratreslucisbr.hpg.ig.com.br/sociedade/28/olbgrk.TTF

They will need to be placed in C:\Windows\Fonts or C:\Winnt\Fonts\ or wherever fonts go on any other system.

[ March 21, 2003, 01:11 AM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]

 

[tyndale1946]

I'm a Primitive Baptist... And that is very important because according to the Articles Of Faith Of My Church... We immerse!... Now if i decide that immersion is not the answer and actually sprinkling or pouring is the mode of baptism... Even though I don't believe it is... I can find a church where they use this mode for new believers. We are primitive or original for a reason... And we are firm believers in immersion or baptizo for the new believer... Without immersion or baptizo Primitive Baptist is just a name and means nothing... Baptist History proves nothing else and it is not my opinion but historical fact!... Brother Glen

 

[blackbird]

Brother Glen,

I'm a Southern Baptist boy--and hang on to total immersion, too! But here's a question maybe you can help me with!

The word says that the Hebrews were baptised by Moses in the Red Sea--any idea as to how this took place--when? On Pharoah's side of the sea or on God's side?

I ain't tryin' to be smart ellecky--just wonderin' cause Paul doesn't elaberate.

Blackbird

 

[AITB]

Blackbird, I'm not trying to be smart-alecky either

but I can't find any passage that says Moses baptised the Hebrews in the Red Sea.

Do you know where it is so I can look it up?

Helen/AITB

 

[Smoky]

The word says that the Hebrews were baptised by Moses in the Red Sea--any idea as to how this took place--when? On Pharoah's side of the sea or on God's side?

The only ones immersed at this baptism were the Egyptians! If any water was involved at all it had to be either the rain from the cloud or droplets from the wall of water being held back! Either way it was a sprinkling.

 

[Smoky]

The following is a rebutal by a presbyterian scholar showing the error of using post christian talmudism as a means of showing the practices of the Jews during the time of Christ.

The great linguist and theologian Rev. Prof. Dr. Gerhard Kittel makes an acute observation -- in his very famous Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, he points out that some of the later Pagan Greek meanings of baptein and baptizein -- "the meanings 'to drown,' 'to sink' or 'to perish' -- seem to be quite absent[!] from the Hebrew and Aramaic taabal, and therefore from baptizein in Jewish Greek" before the birth of the Christian Church.
Here, Kittel is quite correct -- writing about "Jewish Greek" in Pre-Christian times. In Post-Patristic times, however, we sadly also find -- the increasingly sacramentalistic concept of total submersion. That -- deriving from the 'magical' world of Greek and Oriental Paganism -- then unfolded in hellenized Post-Christian Judaism and mediaeval Sub-Christian Ritualism. However, that concept is unknown in the Older Testament! It is also, as Kittel observes, "quite absent" in the intertestamentary Hebrews' Septuagintic use of the words baptein and baptizein. Indeed, it is by and large quite conspicuously absent from the writings even of Post-Maccabean Judaism (at least until after 100 A.D.). So taabal is the Biblical Hebrew word associated with painting and pouring and sprinkling. In the (280 B.C.) Greek Septuagint, this word was often translated baptein and baptizein. These translations enable us rightly to understand the ancient meaning of an important derivative from taabal -- the noun tebiylah This word tebiylah was used to describe the intertestamentary 'baptism' of proselytes (alias converts to Judaism). Thereby, catechised Gentiles and their entire families were incorporated into the Commonwealth of Ancient Israel. Only later below will we further scrutinize this 'proselyte baptism' tebiylah. At the moment, we merely wish to establish all the "pouring" and "sprinkling" connections between the words taabal and tebiylah on the one hand -- and the words baptein and baptizein on the other. Now the Baptist Murray Adamthwaite's article hardly touches on the 'once and for all' tebiylah -- of intertestamentary proselyte baptism (viz. of Gentiles into Judaism). Instead, it is largely devoted to the miqvah (or 'pool of running water') used specifically by Jews: for the purpose of ritually cleansing themselves. This they did not 'once and for all -- but repeatedly. Adamthwaite discusses the miqvah -- of specifically Intertestamentary Judaism. He traces its trail especially from around B.C. 200, until about 30 A.D. He sees this not even as a partial immersion, but as a total submersion. Why? Because he pictures it largely from his own misunderstanding of the permutable perspective thereon -- given in Post-Christian (if not Anti-Christian) Talmudism! Indeed, he draws particularly on the later and uninspired Jewish Mishnah -- and on modern Israeli archaeologists -- in his own imaginative attempt to understand the miqvah. He then further sadly misconceives the intertestamentary repetitive miqvah of Jews themselves -- to be the linear ancestor of the 'once and for all' proselyte baptism tebiylah of Gentiles into Judaism. Predictably, he then wrongly takes the different institution of Johannine and apostolic baptism -- to be the direct descendant of both the miqvah and the tebiylah. Adamthwaite asks: "Can archeology decide an issue of doctrine?" To this, his own boldfaced query, he himself then replies: "Archeology, as a handmaid to historical study, can so often provide valuable information on that historical background.... It will inevitably influence and illuminate our understanding of a given text.... "Christianity is an historical revelation, and [it] comes into a real historical and geographical context.... This context will have continuity with both preceding and subsequent history: the Jewish precursors and the early sub-apostolic period of the Church respectively.... Careful exegesis is done in the light of Jewish sources and the excavations." To Adamthwaite, apparently the latter is the true light. It is not the light of God's Holy Word -- nor the light of 'Christ The Light' of the world! Instead, it is "the light of Jewish sources and the excavations"

SPRINKLING IS SCRIPTURAL
A Reply to the Baptist Adamthwaite's "Baptism is Immersion!"
by Rev. Prof. Dr. Francis Nigel Lee
(M.A., M.Soc.Sc., Th.D., Ph.D., D.Min., D.Ed., LL.D.)

 

[Abiyah]

8o) Any baptism other than complete immersion
is legitimate only if one thinks that the act of
baptism saves.

 

[BobRyan]

The author in the web link feels comfortable contradicting scripture. Notice

Baptism a cleansing indicated by language addressed to Paul: Acts 22:16. — Does not symbolize death and resurrection.

The attempt is made to generalize from Acts 22:16 as though this were the text where the "details" of scripture on the connection between death and resurrection are made. In fact Romans 6:1-5 is the place to "make the case above" if it can be made. And in fact, it can not.

This red herring approach to the doctrine is "not helpful" or constructive. It is merely time consuming and avoids the salient texts that make the point.

As for the cognition required when participating in Batpism - Peter makes the point clearly in Acts two - the one who is baptized must first repent.

In 1Peter 3 - Peter makes the point that the essential spiritual act in the one who is participating in Baptism is "the Appeal to God for a clean conscience" it is not a case of "magic water touching the flesh" as some propose.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Don]

Leon wrote:

Thanks Abiyah, I'm not asking or expecting you or anyone else to read it. However the information you acquired from your "brief glance" is surely indicative of someone who doesn't have much time to study. I passed this link along for people who were interested in acquiring more than just a one sided view about the subject and didn't mind putting a little effort into seeing why other people believe differently.

You violated your own statements here.

Abiyah has a far deeper insight into the actual practices and beliefs of the Jews, both at the time of the Gospels and now. If you were truly putting a little effort into seeing why other people believe differently than you, you'd pay attention rather than just blow her off.

 

[Abiyah]

Thank youu, Don. 8o)

 

[SolaScriptura in 2003]

8o) Any baptism other than complete immersion
is legitimate only if one thinks that the act of
baptism saves.

This is a very ignorant statement! I believe that baptism saves, as did the Apostle Peter (1 Peter 3:21), yet I also maintain that baptism MUST be by immersion. It would actually make more sense for those who don't believe it saves to say that sprinkling is alright -- "seeing as how it doesn't save, it doesn't really matter how we do it!" This is what shocks me about Baptists - they'll argue all day long that Baptism must be immersion of adults and only immersion of adults, but they don't even believe it saves, so why are they messing with it to begin with? Either take all of the Word of God including Acts 2:38 and 1 Peter 3:21 or throw the whole thing out -- quit playing games!!!

In the Red Sea the Israelites were completely covered by water - walls of water to the sides and the cloud above them. (1 Cor 10:2)

PS: The issue of baptism meaning "wash" vs. "immerse" is handled very well by Gill as I pointed out above.

 

[Abiyah]

Sola writes:

This is a very ignorant statement.

8oD Why, thank you, Sola! 8oD

 

[Abiyah]

Originally posted by Sola:
This is a very ignorant statement.

I found your statement about me being "very
ignorant" to be quite humorous last night and had
not intended to respond to it further. Upon
morning light, and considering that you call
yourself "Sola," what is your Scriptural basis for
saying that baptism may be legitimately done any
way other than by immersion, since this is the
subject of the thread?

 

[SolaScriptura in 2003]

...what is your Scriptural basis for
saying that baptism may be legitimately done any
way other than by immersion, since this is the
subject of the thread? (Abiyah)

I did not say that "baptism may be legitimately done any way other than by immersion." In fact, this is why I called your statment ignorant. Please go re-read (or apparently read for the first time) my post in which I called your statement ignorant and you will see that it was ignorant and why it was ignorant - and why the ignorance continues even till now. If you go read it, it will become quite apparent that I believe baptism IS immersion. The ignorance was/is your stereotyping. If you read my even earlier post you will see that I agree with you about having to look at what the Jews did, for I endorsed Gill's explanation of Mark 7:4 about the Jewish "washings" being "immersions."

 

[Abiyah]

8o)

Edit:
I was going to let this go wth just a smile, because
I find it so astounding that people can so easily
get on a board like this and call one another "stupid."
"ignorant," etc. without blinking an eye. But I have
decided to come back and ask, Sola, does it not
bother you? Is your conscience that seared? What
is going on?

I knew exactly what you had said. I am quite
capable of reading, having learned at a young
age. But your reply to me was so astounding to
me that I was trying to get you to respond to what
I had said.

Rather than search people out, if you do not
understand their intentions, you come here and
call me "ignorant." This is simply not the
response of someone who has thought.

Would I come on a board and call you ignorant?
No. I am curious why you think you have the right
to call anyone ignorant.

I would further ask if you have misunderstood what
our Lord said when He said not to call someone a
fool.

[ March 25, 2003, 03:03 AM: Message edited by: Abiyah ]

 

[SolaScriptura in 2003]

You said: "Any baptism other than complete immersion is legitimate only if one thinks that the act of baptism saves."

That statement is pure and unadulterated ignorance aimed at deriding those who believe the truth! Peter said baptism saves, therefore it does! BUT in order to make those who believe Peter look stupid you say "only they would ever be so dumb as to think sprinkling is alright." As if those who don't believe the truth (that baptism saves) will be free from the error of sprinkling by virtue of their being wrong!?! Those who DON'T believe baptism saves would be more lenient! Why should they care whether baptism is immersion or not if they don't think it saves? Those who truly believe it saves by the power of God will be the ones who are very careful to do it correctly.

PS: I realize that you didn't use the words "dumb" or "stupid" but you implied them in your derogatory satement. So you ask "Would I come on a board and call you ignorant?" You did much worse: you called Peter stupid!

[ March 25, 2003, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: SolaScriptura in 2003 ]