Baptism method and meaning across denominations

[Reformed1689]

'Saved'. From what?

Oh don't play dumb.

 

[Marooncat79]

In I Corinthians, Paul says he thanks God that he baptized no one but…… (Gaius and Crispus.. I think, no I’m not looking it up, you can)

if baptism was salvific shouldn’t he brag about all that he baptized since it would have saved them.

 

[kyredneck]

What’s important to us is the formula

How about the instructions on HOW to do it? If I wanted to build a replica of the ark that Noah built, or the one that Moses built, I can find plain, precise, detailed instructions on how to build those in the scriptures. If I wanted to perform (God forbid) a ceremonial sacrifice or oblation, I can find plain, precise, detailed instructions on how to do it. The scriptures contain many examples of plain, precise, detailed instructions that were given. Where are instructions given in the scriptures on how to correctly perform the rite of water baptism?

 

[robycop3]

What’s important to us is the formula, water and Faith. Immersion isn’t necessary.



Show me one instance where it is taught that infants were to be refused baptism. It isn’t there.

The Greek word "baptismo", from which we get 'baptize', means "to immerse". (Not necessarily to baptize, but it proves correct baptism is by immersion.)
Please show us an example in Scripture where a baby, or any non-believer, WAS baptized.

 

[Marooncat79]

Anyone been to a patriarchal household in the Middle East, notice something ? Even today it’s alive with armies of children and babies flying everywhere.
Imagine ancient times when families were not nuclear but generations of families living together was the norm, and extended families of cousins etc living under the same roof, just part of the culture.

A household in the ancient Middle East would very likely have scores of infants and children below 7.

Maybe they were all over 60 and barren?

see how easy it is to argue from silence

 

[kyredneck]

Oh don't play dumb.

Not playing. Serious question. Is this what you think 'sozo' in those passages mean? (i.e., saved = heaven bound):

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall go to heaven; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned. Mk 16

38 And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39 For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him.
40 And with many other words he testified, and exhorted them, saying, send yourselves to heaven from this crooked generation. Acts 2

20 that aforetime were disobedient, when the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls, were sent to heaven through water:
21 which also after a true likeness doth now send you to heaven, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ; 1 Pet 3

 

[Reformed1689]

Anyone been to a patriarchal household in the Middle East, notice something ? Even today it’s alive with armies of children and babies flying everywhere.
Imagine ancient times when families were not nuclear but generations of families living together was the norm, and extended families of cousins etc living under the same roof, just part of the culture.

A household in the ancient Middle East would very likely have scores of infants and children below 7.

Making some assumptions huh?

 

[Cathode]

How about the instructions on HOW to do it? If I wanted to build a replica of the ark that Noah built, or the one that Moses built, I can find plain, precise, detailed instructions on how to build those in the scriptures. If I wanted to perform (God forbid) a ceremonial sacrifice or oblation, I can find plain, precise, detailed instructions on how to do it. The scriptures contain many examples of plain, precise, detailed instructions that were given. Where are instructions given in the scriptures on how to correctly perform the rite of water baptism?

“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

John the Baptist prophesied that Jesus will baptize (“baptisei”) with the Holy Spirit and fire. In this case, “baptisei” refers to a “pouring” out over the head. This is confirmed by Matt. 3:16 where the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus’ head like a dove and Acts 2:3-4 where the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary and the apostles’ heads in the form of tongues of fire.

“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 “Joel 2:28

Pouring out of The Spirit, and pouring water over the head, is valid.

Immersion is valid, since water is moving over the head.

2 Kings 5:14 Namaan went down and dipped himself in the Jordan. The Greek word for “dipped” is “baptizo.” Here, baptizo means immersion.

Sprinkling is valid due to prophecy.

Ezek. 36:25 Ezekiel prophesies that God “will ‘sprinkle’ clean water over you and you shall be clean.” The word for “sprinkle” is “rhaino” which means what it says, sprinkle, not immersion. “Kai rhaino eph hymas hydor katharon.” .

People get caught up in silly legalisms, and miss the entire spirit and purpose of the theology. Turns into a childish Batman vs Spider-Man argument.
God doesn’t think in this childish way.

In all these instances we see moving water.

 

[Reformed1689]

“And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

John the Baptist prophesied that Jesus will baptize (“baptisei”) with the Holy Spirit and fire. In this case, “baptisei” refers to a “pouring” out over the head. This is confirmed by Matt. 3:16 where the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus’ head like a dove and Acts 2:3-4 where the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary and the apostles’ heads in the form of tongues of fire.

“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 “Joel 2:28

Pouring out of The Spirit, and pouring water over the head, is valid.

Immersion is valid, since water is moving over the head.

2 Kings 5:14 Namaan went down and dipped himself in the Jordan. The Greek word for “dipped” is “baptizo.” Here, baptizo means immersion.

Sprinkling is valid due to prophecy.

Ezek. 36:25 Ezekiel prophesies that God “will ‘sprinkle’ clean water over you and you shall be clean.” The word for “sprinkle” is “rhaino” which means what it says, sprinkle, not immersion. “Kai rhaino eph hymas hydor katharon.” .

People get caught up in silly legalisms, and miss the entire spirit and purpose of the theology. Turns into a childish Batman vs Spider-Man argument.
God doesn’t think in this childish way.

In all these instances we see moving water.

Yet when the New Testament talks about water baptism, it is immersion. That is what we go by, that is the model, that is the mandate.

 

[Iconoclast]

The warrant comes from Jesus Himself.

“ Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.”

“Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them, for such as these belongs the kingdom of God”

If the kingdom of God belongs to these, why do people withhold the waters of baptism.

Man and even Jesus own disciples try to hinder them even today by legalism.

“ do not hinder them, for such as these belongs the kingdom of God”

Jesus bypasses the legalism, and gives those infants a warrant, saying that these are the owners, that the Kingdom of God belongs to them. “

The water in jn3. is not water baptism.
it is the water of separation.num19.
the children Jesus spoke of were believers mt.18:6

 

[kyredneck]

John the Baptist prophesied that Jesus will baptize (“baptisei”) with the Holy Spirit and fire. In this case, “baptisei” refers to a “pouring” out over the head. This is confirmed by Matt. 3:16 where the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus’ head like a dove and Acts 2:3-4 where the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary and the apostles’ heads in the form of tongues of fire.

Thanks for replying Cathode. My thoughts on John's Baptism in Mt 3:

"Baptize (“baptisei”) with the Holy Spirit and fire" are opposites (he will gather his wheat into the garner, but the chaff he will burn), the first was being 'clothed with power from on high' and the latter signifying vengeance poured out from on high. Wind, water, are indeed common metaphors or symbols for the Spirit. Fire, on the other hand, is by far and away primarily the metaphor/symbol most commonly used for the wrath of God.

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said unto them, Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
8 Bring forth therefore fruit worthy of repentance:
9 and think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
10 And even now the axe lieth at the root of the trees: every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
11 I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire:
12 whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing-floor; and he will gather his wheat into the garner, but the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire. Mt 3

A closer scrutiny of the context of Mt 3 should show that fire is NOT being used as a metaphor/symbol for the Spirit, but is in reference to WRATH. This is the prophet John the Baptist speaking to his fellow countrymen, to whom he was sent.

Speaking to the Pharisees and Sadducees, “Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?” John was referring to that wrath that was to come upon 'that generation' of Jews (“even now the axe lieth at the root of the trees” and, “the chaff he will burn up with unquenchable fire”).

“ ..he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in fire...”. And that's exactly what Christ did to that generation of Jews that He walked among and preached to. To those that received Him, He gave the Spirit. Those that rejected Him had only that certain expectation of wrath to come.

Behold then the goodness and severity of God.....Ro 11:22

 

[kyredneck]

it is the water of separation.num19.

???

Water in Jn 3 signifies something, what is it?

 

[Iconoclast]

???

Water in Jn 3 signifies something, what is it?

The water of separation from numbers 19:9....ezk36.25-27

Then Jesus spoke of num.21 :8,9

 

[kyredneck]

The water of separation from numbers 19:9

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God! Jn 3

So, to enter the kingdom of God one must keep ashes of a burnt heifer in a jar AND be born of the Spirit.

Got it.

9 And a man that is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up without the camp in a clean place, and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water of separation: it is a purification for sin.

Maybe you could explain it?

 

[Iconoclast]

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except one be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God! Jn 3

So, to enter the kingdom of God one must keep ashes of a burnt heifer in a jar AND be born of the Spirit.

Got it.

9 And a man that is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, and lay them up without the camp in a clean place, and it shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel for a water of separation: it is a purification for sin.

Maybe you could explain it?

Good question Kyred....but the writer to Hebrews 9 beat me to it....read the whole chapter as He explains how Jesus is the fulfillment as our great High priest.
You could even read from chapter 7-10
Nicodemus was familiar with this, as well as ezk 36.
Nicodemus knew nothing of Christian baptism, but he knew about the water of separation...it is an atonement for sin.

 

[Marooncat79]

The didache, (a non canonical early writing) says that at the end of the 1st century they were only baptizing by immersion.

so back to canonical writings: where was an infant baptized in the NT?

 

[ntchristian]

So the differences are.

We see baptism as Salvific , bringing the Life of the Trinity to a Soul.

You guys see it as symbolic of an already established saving belief and faith in Christ. A work of a declaration of faith having to take place beforehand.

Babies and the mentally disabled can’t carry out that work of a declaration of faith. How do they get saved in that system?

Just my opinion, but I believe they do not need to "get saved". I believe they are already saved. I believe God has mercy on the innocent and graciously saves them -- no ritual needed or required.

 

[ntchristian]

The didache, (a non canonical early writing) says that at the end of the 1st century they were only baptizing by immersion.

so back to canonical writings: where was an infant baptized in the NT?

Actually, the Didache did allow for pouring, as a secondary mode when immersion could not be done.

"Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: after you have reviewed all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in running water. But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water; and if you are not able to baptize in cold water, then do so in warm. But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit..."

But, as you point out, the Didache is not canonical.

I think it is significant that the Eastern Church will baptize only by immersion, even baptizing babies that way. The Eastern, Greek church knew/knows what the original meaning and mode of baptism was.

 

[Reformed1689]

Just my opinion, but I believe they do not need to "get saved". I believe they are already saved. I believe God has mercy on the innocent and graciously saves them -- no ritual needed or required.

Except they are not innocent.

 

[Reformed1689]

Actually, the Didache did allow for pouring, as a secondary mode when immersion could not be done.

"Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: after you have reviewed all these things, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in running water. But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water; and if you are not able to baptize in cold water, then do so in warm. But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit..."

But, as you point out, the Didache is not canonical.

I think it is significant that the Eastern Church will baptize only by immersion, even baptizing babies that way. The Eastern, Greek church knew/knows what the original meaning and mode of baptism was.

That is also different than sprinkling babies.