Immersion

[Salty]

I stand corrected. Thank you

no problem, I thought the same thing, until I googled an article.

 

[VDMA]

I guess it is a problem with definitions. I’ve never heard that the Kone Greek “baptizmo” simply means to “apply water.”

I’ve been taught it means to immerse or dip in water. That is the example found in Acts with the Ethiopian Eunuch.

When modern translators (English) came across “baptizmo” and realized it meant immerse in water, which was not the practice of the church, they invented a new word “baptize” I guess to have a little flexibility.

On the other hand, I’m glad they invented “baptize” instead of immerse or dip in water. Otherwise, the President of the SBC would be called the “Big Dipper”.

peace to you

No one invented anything. We do not even know if Jesus was fully immersed let alone the three thousand in Acts. The fact that Jesus came from the water after his baptism (Mt 3:16) does not automatically imply that he was immersed in the water. The baptism of three thousand people on Pentecost was most likely done without immersion. None of the references to Baptism in Acts indicate that immersion must be considered as the only mode for the sacrament. The Greek word for baptize (baptizo) simply means “to apply water.” The water can be applied by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion. All three are valid methods to baptized.

In the Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican … tradition pouring water is the normal mode, in the Baptist church immersion only, in the Orthodox Church immersion is the preferred followed by pouring and sprinkling. Sprinkling, pouring, or immersion are all valid. The amount of water used is not what makes Holy Baptism valid. Sacred scripture is not dogmatic about the amount of water used. There is no “thou shall use full immersion only” command in sacred scripture.

This is an example of a valid full immersion baptism.

 

[Salty]

From another thread:

Well, we know immersion did happen in the Early church-
Why is it over the next centuries the Roman Catholic church decided that sprinkling was acceptable?

But before we get into the time line:

What is the reason for baptism?

Lets get back to the OP -

 

[Salty]

Catholic doctrinal Flip-Flops: Baptism: Changed from immersion to sprinkling in 1311 AD.

 

[VDMA]

Catholic doctrinal Flip-Flops: Baptism: Changed from immersion to sprinkling in 1311 AD.

You just used an anti-Catholic anti-Lutheran heterodox website as a reference. That website has a classic 1990’s feel. In all seriousness, that website is not authoritative by any means … as my kids would say … it is cringe. That website is dumpster burner trash.

The Catholics changed it!!! ...is not a valid argument. If you want to say that the western Church changed their preference —okay. As if this is some kind of argument that invalidates other modes. The Catholic Church still immerses today … The eastern rite Catholic Church uses full immersion. It is really a preference. There is no command in sacred scripture that demands full immersion.

 

[37818]

There is no command in sacred scripture that demands full immersion.

If it is not immersion it is not immersion.

 

[canadyjd]

No one invented anything. We do not even know if Jesus was fully immersed let alone the three thousand in Acts. The fact that Jesus came from the water after his baptism (Mt 3:16) does not automatically imply that he was immersed in the water. The baptism of three thousand people on Pentecost was most likely done without immersion. None of the references to Baptism in Acts indicate that immersion must be considered as the only mode for the sacrament. The Greek word for baptize (baptizo) simply means “to apply water.” The water can be applied by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion. All three are valid methods to baptized.

In the Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican … tradition pouring water is the normal mode, in the Baptist church immersion only, in the Orthodox Church immersion is the preferred followed by pouring and sprinkling. Sprinkling, pouring, or immersion are all valid. The amount of water used is not what makes Holy Baptism valid. Sacred scripture is not dogmatic about the amount of water used. There is no “thou shall use full immersion only” command in sacred scripture.

This is an example of a valid full immersion baptism.

View attachment 6858

Like I said, the Greek “baptizmo” means immerse in water. It may have later involved into “apply water”, but in 1st century Kone Greek it means immerse.

A bigger, more substantive question imo, is whether baptism is necessary for salvation? Along with that question is whether “believers baptism” is the model found in scripture and does baptizing babies/children do anything other than get them wet and make parents feel better?

Peace to you

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Did you not even read what you just quoted???

"...us as were BAPTIZED into Jesus Christ were BAPTIZED into his death...so we should walk in NEWNESS OF LIFE."

It says they were baptized (immersed) INTO Christ, and INTO his death

it does not say they were Immersed in water

it is the immersion or placing into christ that brings us newness of life. not water

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Like I said, the Greek “baptizmo” means immerse in water. It may have later involved into “apply water”, but in 1st century Kone Greek it means immerse.

A bigger, more substantive question imo, is whether baptism is necessary for salvation? Along with that question is whether “believers baptism” is the model found in scripture and does baptizing babies/children do anything other than get them wet and make parents feel better?

Peace to you

this is wrong.

To immerse is the defenition. In water is just one of the many things that one can be immersed in. one can be immersed or plunged into or placed into many things..

 

[VDMA]

Like I said, the Greek “baptizmo” means immerse in water. It may have later involved into “apply water”, but in 1st century Kone Greek it means immerse.

A bigger, more substantive question imo, is whether baptism is necessary for salvation? Along with that question is whether “believers baptism” is the model found in scripture and does baptizing babies/children do anything other than get them wet and make parents feel better?

Peace to you

The topic is full immersion not what baptism does. But yes, Baptism is necessary because God wills it, but a person could be saved without Baptism (as long as Baptism has not been despised). So yes, baptism is necessary for salvation under normal circumstances.

The Reformed/Baptist churches teach that we are to get baptized simply because God told us to do it. It is something we do for God, not something God does for us. Zwingli regarded Baptism as a mere badge by which Christians could recognize other Christians.

What does Holy Baptism do?

Baptism works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare. Holy baptism washes away all sins, including the most grievous mortal sins. The historic apostolic biblical view of holy baptism is baptismal regeneration. Sacred scripture is crystal clear on holy baptism, including every single church fathers, Church council and all of church history and most importantly sacred scripture teaches baptismal regeneration.

The historical apostolic biblical view of baptismal regeneration is beyond the original intent of the post.


WhaddaBout the Thief on the Cross

 

[canadyjd]

It says they were baptized (immersed) INTO Christ, and INTO his death

it does not say they were Immersed in water

it is the immersion or placing into christ that brings us newness of life. not water

Not disputing that at all, but the command to baptize (immerse in water in the Name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is something we do that proclaims to all our new life in Christ.

Being placed (immersed) in Christ (or by God Holy Spirit) is something God does that we cannot manipulate or control. That authority remains in the Hands of God, not men.

peace to you

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Not disputing that at all, but the command to baptize (immerse in water in the Name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit) is something we do that proclaims to all our new life in Christ.

Being placed (immersed) in Christ (or by God Holy Spirit) is something God does that we cannot manipulate or control. That authority remains in the Hands of God, not men.

peace to you

Yes I agree

However. being baptized in water is obedience to Gods command. like obeying any command. It is not special. Sadly people want to make it required to be saved when it is not..

the baptism by God is what washes us and saves us.

 

[canadyjd]

The topic is full immersion not what baptism does. But yes, Baptism is necessary because God wills it, but a person could be saved without Baptism (as long as Baptism has not been despised). So yes, baptism is necessary for salvation under normal circumstances.

The Reformed/Baptist churches teach that we are to get baptized simply because God told us to do it. It is something we do for God, not something God does for us. Zwingli regarded Baptism as a mere badge by which Christians could recognize other Christians.

What does Holy Baptism do?

Baptism works forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this, as the words and promises of God declare. Holy baptism washes away all sins, including the most grievous mortal sins. The historic apostolic biblical view of holy baptism is baptismal regeneration. Sacred scripture is crystal clear on holy baptism, including every single church fathers, Church council and all of church history and most importantly sacred scripture teaches baptismal regeneration.

The historical apostolic biblical view of baptismal regeneration is beyond the original intent of the post.


WhaddaBout the Thief on the Cross

I agree the meaning of baptism is beyond the scope of the OP, so let’s get back to it.

Do you have any reference in scripture that defines baptism as anything other than your opinion Jesus was not necessarily immersed by John, despite scripture clearly stating He was?

peace to you

 

[canadyjd]

Yes I agree

However. being baptized in water is obedience to Gods command. like obeying any command. It is not special. Sadly people want to make it required to be saved when it is not..

the baptism by God is what washes us and saves us.

Obedience to God’s commands is important and shouldn’t be dismissed as “not special”, though I understand you to mean no special blessings (salvation, washing away sin, etc…)

All obedience to God’s commands brings our walk closer to Him and is special in that regard.

peace to you

 

[VDMA]

Sadly people want to make it required to be saved when it is not..

Do not put the Lord your God to the test … This is nothing more than the voice of ancient serpent “did God really say” baptism is necessary … perhaps God meant it to be optional.

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

It is clear that God desires for us to be baptized. His command is to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them” (Mt 28:19). Those who neglect or despise Baptism, then, indicate a lack of faith. Baptism is necessary, then, for God wills it. Baptism is necessary* for salvation.

 

[canadyjd]

Do not put the Lord your God to the test … This is nothing more than the voice of ancient serpent “did God really say” baptism is necessary … perhaps God meant it to be optional.

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

It is clear that God desires for us to be baptized. His command is to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them” (Mt 28:19). Those who neglect or despise Baptism, then, indicate a lack of faith. Baptism is necessary, then, for God wills it. Baptism is necessary* for salvation.

First, Mark 16:16 doesn’t not say “he that is not baptized is damned”, but he that doesn’t believe. The focus is on Faith, not baptism. I do understand, however the tying baptism and belief together for salvation by the way it is worded, but the rest of the sentence explains the meaning… it is the lack of faith, not lack of baptism that damns.

Second: You say here that baptism is necessary for salvation, but in post#30 you say there are exceptions. If there are exceptions, then it’s is not required for salvation.

Third, I’m still waiting for you to give an example from scripture where baptism doesn’t mean immersion into water other than your opinion that Jesus was not necessarily immersed by John, despite the clear teaching of the text.

Lastly, I do appreciate your perspective and civil debate on issues that are often contentious.

peace to you

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Obedience to God’s commands is important and shouldn’t be dismissed as “not special”, though I understand you to mean no special blessings (salvation, washing away sin, etc…)

All obedience to God’s commands brings our walk closer to Him and is special in that regard.

peace to you

we agree

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Do not put the Lord your God to the test … This is nothing more than the voice of ancient serpent “did God really say” baptism is necessary … perhaps God meant it to be optional.

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

It is clear that God desires for us to be baptized. His command is to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them” (Mt 28:19). Those who neglect or despise Baptism, then, indicate a lack of faith. Baptism is necessary, then, for God wills it. Baptism is necessary* for salvation.

I would be more worried about adding a work of man to the gospel. Its no different than adding circumcision to the gospel. Both were commanded by God. But it is the spiritual circumcision/baptism which saved. not the physical.

Nothing in mark 16 states that is water baptism, in fact. since Jesus never mentioned baptism every time he gave the gospel. we KNOW it can not be water baptism. otherwise he would have told us.

 

[VDMA]

First, Mark 16:16 doesn’t not say “he that is not baptized is damned”, but he that doesn’t believe. The focus is on Faith, not baptism. I do understand, however the tying baptism and belief together for salvation by the way it is worded, but the rest of the sentence explains the meaning… it is the lack of faith, not lack of baptism that damns.

Second: You say here that baptism is necessary for salvation, but in post#30 you say there are exceptions. If there are exceptions, then it’s is not required for salvation.

Third, I’m still waiting for you to give an example from scripture where baptism doesn’t mean immersion into water other than your opinion that Jesus was not necessarily immersed by John, despite the clear teaching of the text.

Lastly, I do appreciate your perspective and civil debate on issues that are often contentious.

peace to you

Baptist really have a very low view of baptism. Here lies the problem, when you reject the historic apostolic biblical view of holy baptism and “water” it down to being merely symbolic— what is the point. If it is nothing more than an accessory … bling … next logical conclusion would be it is not necessary.

Willfully not being baptized will send one straight to hell if they die rejecting holy baptism. These false teachings put peoples souls at risk.

Those who neglect or despise Baptism, then, indicate a lack of faith. As Jesus said, “The Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God’s purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John” (Lk 7:30). Baptism is necessary, then, for God wills it.

And here’s another critical error of Baptist, Baptist believe baptism is man’s work and not God’s work. In Baptism, the father, son, and Holy Spirit are present. Do you really think it is your work … as your work first step of obedience?

I made a decision for Christ … I was baptized to show my first step of obedience … baptism is like a wedding ring … etc. A mere symbolic view of baptism is just not taught in sacred scripture.

The exceptions are those who desire baptism, but are unable to be baptized before they die. It is not the absence of baptism that dams … it is the rejection of it.

———

Now let’s get back on topic—immersion. Start a new post on baptism if you want to talk about what baptism is and what baptism does. The original post was about the mode of baptism.

 

[canadyjd]

Baptist really have a very low view of baptism. Here lies the problem, when you reject the historic apostolic biblical view of holy baptism and “water” it down to being merely symbolic— what is the point. If it is nothing more than an accessory … bling … next logical conclusion would be it is not necessary.

Willfully not being baptized will send one straight to hell if they die rejecting holy baptism. These false teachings put peoples souls at risk.

Those who neglect or despise Baptism, then, indicate a lack of faith. As Jesus said, “The Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God’s purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John” (Lk 7:30). Baptism is necessary, then, for God wills it.

And here’s another critical error of Baptist, Baptist believe baptism is man’s work and not God’s work. In Baptism, the father, son, and Holy Spirit are present. Do you really think it is your work … as your work first step of obedience?

I made a decision for Christ … I was baptized to show my first step of obedience … baptism is like a wedding ring … etc. A mere symbolic view of baptism is just not taught in sacred scripture.

The exceptions are those who desire baptism, but are unable to be baptized before they die. It is not the absence of baptism that dams … it is the rejection of it.

———

Now let’s get back on topic—immersion. Start a new post on baptism if you want to talk about what baptism is and what baptism does. The original post was about the mode of baptism.

First, I do not have a “low view of baptism”. I believe it to be very important, just not salvific..

As far as it being symbolic, Paul states that those who are baptized are baptized into Christ death.

Do you believe that statement to be literal or symbolic?

My focus in salvation is always on what God does in the person’s life. Not what I do and certainly not what another fallen human being (I.e. a priest) does or says. Salvation is a work of God from start to finish.

The critical error of Catholicism is they re-establish a priesthood that was abolished by Christ Himself. Where scripture says there is only one mediator between God and man (Jesus Christ) Catholics re-instituted a hierarchy of priests, as well as dead saints and angels, that are mediators between God and man, usurping the Office of Great High Priest from Jesus.

Now that our talking points have been articulated, back to the OP.

Is there any place in scripture where baptism means anything other than immersion in water. I’m not interested in your opinion, only what scripture says.

peace to you