-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Jesus's baptism:
- Thread starter mima
- Start date
Tom Butler
New Member
The Greek word baptizo means "to dip, plunge." John immersed Jesus in the Jordan, but we don't have a record of the word he used, if any.
Tom B
Tom B
Yeah, riiiiiight! You're joking, right? You have to be. Either that or you've been looking at too many artists' representations.
John and Jesus actually went down into the Jordon River so that John could take out his canteen and pour a little water over the head of Jesus. Riiiiiiight!
"And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water" (Matt. 3:16).
I'm assuming this is humor. If not, I would like to see your church doctrine, Ron, that would allow such blatantly unbiblical mode of baptism as normative.
I know some pretty liberal "baptist" churches that might allow in folks UNbaptized or let them join if sprinkled or affused elsewhere, but I've not found one with a baptismal font and sprinkling new members.
Dr Bob
There are some hand drawn pictures in the underground catacombs of Rome that date back as early as 100 A.D On the walls are drawings of our Lord standing in water, with water being poured over his head, and a dove pictured directly overhead. The early Christians believed our Lord was baptized by pouring, while standing in the river.
John the Baptist chose the Jordan river for baptizing because of the amount of water he would easily have access to, rather than constantly filling up a vessel from a well or a large urn.Remember John baptized literally hundreds of people BY HIMSELF. He would have had broken arms if he had to immersed all those folks in one day, if he immersed them fully under water. And don't forget the 5,000 at Pentecost. Twelve apostles would have been physically exhausted if full immersion was involved and besides no mention is made of the 5,000 being immersed in a river anyway.
It is true both John and Jesus went down to the water and came out of the water, but scripture does NOT say they both went UNDER the water, which would have to be the case if total immersion was involved. Notice scripture says they BOTH came out of the water and both went into the water. That means BOTH Jesus and John were involved in this action. If one went under the water than BOTH would have had to as well. For it says BOTH went down into the water.
Also one can consult Chafer's Systematic theology discussion on this matter on the section on baptism. Lewis Sperry Chafer was the dean of Dallas Bible Seminary and a Baptist at that. His position agrees with mine.
There are some hand drawn pictures in the underground catacombs of Rome that date back as early as 100 A.D On the walls are drawings of our Lord standing in water, with water being poured over his head, and a dove pictured directly overhead. The early Christians believed our Lord was baptized by pouring, while standing in the river.
John the Baptist chose the Jordan river for baptizing because of the amount of water he would easily have access to, rather than constantly filling up a vessel from a well or a large urn.Remember John baptized literally hundreds of people BY HIMSELF. He would have had broken arms if he had to immersed all those folks in one day, if he immersed them fully under water. And don't forget the 5,000 at Pentecost. Twelve apostles would have been physically exhausted if full immersion was involved and besides no mention is made of the 5,000 being immersed in a river anyway.
It is true both John and Jesus went down to the water and came out of the water, but scripture does NOT say they both went UNDER the water, which would have to be the case if total immersion was involved. Notice scripture says they BOTH came out of the water and both went into the water. That means BOTH Jesus and John were involved in this action. If one went under the water than BOTH would have had to as well. For it says BOTH went down into the water.
Also one can consult Chafer's Systematic theology discussion on this matter on the section on baptism. Lewis Sperry Chafer was the dean of Dallas Bible Seminary and a Baptist at that. His position agrees with mine.
What if he didn't use any words at all? Are words necessary for a proper baptism?
When Jesus said "baptize them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" couldn't that have been an understanding of Who the person was being baptized to, rather than a formula for what words we have to use during the baptism?
When Jesus said "baptize them in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit" couldn't that have been an understanding of Who the person was being baptized to, rather than a formula for what words we have to use during the baptism?
bapmom
This has been a debate in Protestant circles centuries. The majority baptize in the triune name. The "Jesus Only" Pentecostal group baptize only "in the the name of Jesus Christ". The Church of Christ denomination doesn't use any titles when baptizing converts. All give scriptural arguments and I must admit the Jesus Only group presents a pretty good case when we look at the book of Acts and baptism.
But what does church history say? In truth the very early church baptized in the name of Jesus only.It was after the 2nd century that triune baptism blossemed. Triune immersion started with with early church fathers such as Tertullian and Justin Martyr. Some churches during that period immersed or poured water over the converts head THREE TIMES in succession. The formula and method of baptism has ALWAYS been a diversified action of the church.
One wonders why anyone is baptized at all, if a sinner is justified by faith ALONE and is forever saved afterward? Baptism thus has no merit or purpose. That is, if you hold to this position.
This has been a debate in Protestant circles centuries. The majority baptize in the triune name. The "Jesus Only" Pentecostal group baptize only "in the the name of Jesus Christ". The Church of Christ denomination doesn't use any titles when baptizing converts. All give scriptural arguments and I must admit the Jesus Only group presents a pretty good case when we look at the book of Acts and baptism.
But what does church history say? In truth the very early church baptized in the name of Jesus only.It was after the 2nd century that triune baptism blossemed. Triune immersion started with with early church fathers such as Tertullian and Justin Martyr. Some churches during that period immersed or poured water over the converts head THREE TIMES in succession. The formula and method of baptism has ALWAYS been a diversified action of the church.
One wonders why anyone is baptized at all, if a sinner is justified by faith ALONE and is forever saved afterward? Baptism thus has no merit or purpose. That is, if you hold to this position.
donnaA
Scripture and church history must go hand in hand, so that we can get a fuller understanding of very early church practices. In WHAT way did the early church practice communion and baptism. What became of the apostles? How did the church develop? What was the Church's feelings about the Lord's day, compared to the Sabbath? And countless other issues.
This would be equivalent to understanding the forming of our American government and it's constitution. To get a fuller understanding of it's original meaning we must also study it's historic content.
Scripture and church history must go hand in hand, so that we can get a fuller understanding of very early church practices. In WHAT way did the early church practice communion and baptism. What became of the apostles? How did the church develop? What was the Church's feelings about the Lord's day, compared to the Sabbath? And countless other issues.
This would be equivalent to understanding the forming of our American government and it's constitution. To get a fuller understanding of it's original meaning we must also study it's historic content.
No.
I believe in studying church history, but we must not equate historical precedent with Scriptural authority!
What if the church fathers goofed up? You know, Paul got onto Peter one time--Peter had messed up...let's not elevate these guys to perfection.
What if we're getting a goofball account of history? There were plenty of frauds out there. Let's be careful in elevating some of these accounts to canonical status.
You're seriously going to define a mode of baptism based on the cave drawings of ancient palestine? I saw a painting the other day of Mary and Joseph being married in Rome before a priest. But I don't begin to assert that the event took place. Just because someone has artistic tendencies does not a factual event make.
Ron, you seem to be adding a bunch to scripture. I'll just stick with the biblical stuff myself...I have a hard enough time following that
Ron,
Where are you coming from man? In the thread concerning catholics praying to Mary you think that practice is not a big deal when the Bible plainly tells us we have one mediator between God and man.
The way you claim church history and the scriptures must go hand and hand I'm beginning to think your catholic? That statement sure sounds like RCC thinking anyway.
Reveal thyself!
Where are you coming from man? In the thread concerning catholics praying to Mary you think that practice is not a big deal when the Bible plainly tells us we have one mediator between God and man.
The way you claim church history and the scriptures must go hand and hand I'm beginning to think your catholic? That statement sure sounds like RCC thinking anyway.
Reveal thyself!
shannonL
For one thing, the saints that have gone on before us are not DEAD, but still alive and very conscious. They pray for us and the church as a whole. The church is a body, made up of believers here on earth AND IN HEAVEN. Somehow. Christians seem to think when Grandma or Grandpa died, that was the end of them. Well, that is not true. Their body dies, but their soul goes to it's appointed place and is very conscious.See Luke 16:19-31 for example.
Sure I believe Mary prays for us, but I ALSO believe ALL the other saints do to. That is the difference between me and the Catholic church. I believe in "the communion of the SAINTS" as a WHOLE and not just the communion of Mary as the Catholic church does.
If you read my post elsewhere I related about my near death.experience to heaven. I saw many saints up there and they were VERY MUCH ALIVE, talking and happy. They are very aware of their loved ones on earth and they do pray for them. We are as the bible says, surrounded by a "great cloud of witnesses" who have gone on before us.
In the early church creeds, especially the Nicene creed, which even the Lutheran church recites, it states we BELIEVE IN THE COMMUNION OF SAINTS. The early church in history firmly believed as I do that the saints who have gone before us are indeed praying for us in heaven and will continue to do so, until we leave this world.
For one thing, the saints that have gone on before us are not DEAD, but still alive and very conscious. They pray for us and the church as a whole. The church is a body, made up of believers here on earth AND IN HEAVEN. Somehow. Christians seem to think when Grandma or Grandpa died, that was the end of them. Well, that is not true. Their body dies, but their soul goes to it's appointed place and is very conscious.See Luke 16:19-31 for example.
Sure I believe Mary prays for us, but I ALSO believe ALL the other saints do to. That is the difference between me and the Catholic church. I believe in "the communion of the SAINTS" as a WHOLE and not just the communion of Mary as the Catholic church does.
If you read my post elsewhere I related about my near death.experience to heaven. I saw many saints up there and they were VERY MUCH ALIVE, talking and happy. They are very aware of their loved ones on earth and they do pray for them. We are as the bible says, surrounded by a "great cloud of witnesses" who have gone on before us.
In the early church creeds, especially the Nicene creed, which even the Lutheran church recites, it states we BELIEVE IN THE COMMUNION OF SAINTS. The early church in history firmly believed as I do that the saints who have gone before us are indeed praying for us in heaven and will continue to do so, until we leave this world.
mountainrun
New Member
I thought this particular forum was for Baptists only?!!
MR
MR
Tom Butler
New Member
Ron,
Scripture, please for Mary or any other saint in heaven praying for us.
Tom B
Scripture, please for Mary or any other saint in heaven praying for us.
Tom B
Ron Arndt,
if you think that saying that you believe ALL the saints pray and intercede for us actually makes you DIFFERENT than the Catholics, than you are dead wrong. What do you think all the patron saints are? Catholics all over the world pray to all sorts of various saints for all sorts of ailments, problems and situations in their lives.
Someone made a good point in another thread in the "All Denominations" area. Just calling an act by another name does not change the truth of that act. If I pick up a gun and kill someone with it, I do not have a valid defense if I decide to call it "bimlopping" them, instead of murdering them. SAYING that praying to a saint in heaven is not the same as worship does not change the fact that it IS the same. Simply because you do not acknowledge it as giving a mortal GOD's attributes, does not change the truth of the matter...
You sound like a Catholic, not a Baptist. No Baptist Ive ever known would ever say the things you are saying.
if you think that saying that you believe ALL the saints pray and intercede for us actually makes you DIFFERENT than the Catholics, than you are dead wrong. What do you think all the patron saints are? Catholics all over the world pray to all sorts of various saints for all sorts of ailments, problems and situations in their lives.
Someone made a good point in another thread in the "All Denominations" area. Just calling an act by another name does not change the truth of that act. If I pick up a gun and kill someone with it, I do not have a valid defense if I decide to call it "bimlopping" them, instead of murdering them. SAYING that praying to a saint in heaven is not the same as worship does not change the fact that it IS the same. Simply because you do not acknowledge it as giving a mortal GOD's attributes, does not change the truth of the matter...
You sound like a Catholic, not a Baptist. No Baptist Ive ever known would ever say the things you are saying.
As to the OP,
cave drawings are not going to trump the Bible for me. Its alot simpler to draw a dripping wet man already standing up after/before being baptized, rather than have to make three or four depictions in order to tell the entire procedure of baptism.
However, the point of the OP is about what words we use. To me this starts getting into the heresy that if you don't use the right words than you aren't "really" baptized. Apostolics do this all the time. But they go so far as to say you aren't saved if you aren't baptized right.....some man saying Jesus' name instead of "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."
Historically, during John the Baptist's time, is it not true that baptism was a very common practice? From what I understand, people were baptized to show that they were following and/or agreeing with the teachings of whoever was doing the baptizing. This could mean the leader himself did the baptizing OR one of his followers. But its not like John the Baptist was the first or only person of that time doing baptizing. It was something that the people of that time were quite familiar with as a practical way to symbolize their identification with a specific group and/or teaching. There didn't necessarily need to be any words at all when John baptized Jesus.
Then again, perhaps God said it all as Jesus came UP out of the water...."This is my beloved Son of Whom I am well pleased."
cave drawings are not going to trump the Bible for me. Its alot simpler to draw a dripping wet man already standing up after/before being baptized, rather than have to make three or four depictions in order to tell the entire procedure of baptism.
However, the point of the OP is about what words we use. To me this starts getting into the heresy that if you don't use the right words than you aren't "really" baptized. Apostolics do this all the time. But they go so far as to say you aren't saved if you aren't baptized right.....some man saying Jesus' name instead of "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."
Historically, during John the Baptist's time, is it not true that baptism was a very common practice? From what I understand, people were baptized to show that they were following and/or agreeing with the teachings of whoever was doing the baptizing. This could mean the leader himself did the baptizing OR one of his followers. But its not like John the Baptist was the first or only person of that time doing baptizing. It was something that the people of that time were quite familiar with as a practical way to symbolize their identification with a specific group and/or teaching. There didn't necessarily need to be any words at all when John baptized Jesus.
Then again, perhaps God said it all as Jesus came UP out of the water...."This is my beloved Son of Whom I am well pleased."
And remember the history of the TRUE church, not the one that became the Catholic Church. The true New Testament Church was perscuted by the Catholic church. Why? Because the N.T. church did not believe in baptismal regeneration.
Ana-Baptists "re-baptized" those who were converts....because infant baptism was already being practiced.
Ana-Baptists "re-baptized" those who were converts....because infant baptism was already being practiced.