The Baptist requirements for communion?

Actually, I was going on memory on the definition from the Greek for BAPTIZW - in saying that it essentially means to clean/wash. Well Liddell & Scott says it essentially means to immerse, and Bauer... (BAGD) says:

But it was used of Jewish ritual washings in Mark 7:4 and Luke 11:38, so the idea of washing was clearly an inherent part of the meaning.

And notice...

This seems to indicate that Paul was careful about making too much of water baptism - anything that could diminish the cross of Christ to any degree should be avoided.

In some Jewish documents apparently baptism by pouring was allowed because of some necessity. (Perhaps the person was old and sick.)

The focus of NT baptism is not on the mode, but on the name of the person we are being baptized into.

just rambling...

FWIW,

FA

 

Yes. Baptism is the outward evidence that one has participated in the death of Christ which is being remembered. </font>[/QUOTE]But what is more importance: the outward evidence/picture, or the inward reality?

I am not trying to diminish the importance of obeying our Lord's command, but trying to put it in perspective.

 

I've heard it argued, as I did earlier, "It says when Jesus was baptized, he came up out of the water." That means he was submerged and he came up out of the water. Then they got to Acts 8 and say, "And the same thing happens with Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch."

But if you read this carefully, you read that Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch both came up out of the water. Does that mean they were both submerged? No, no one would argue that. What it probably means is that they left the area of the water and they went back onto shore, right? So, probably the same thing is in view with Jesus in the synoptic Gospels -- he is baptized and he comes up out of the water. Probably, it does not mean that he comes out of the water and he is not submerged anymore. Probably, it means that he walks up onto the shore.

Yet there is something here. If sprinkling or pouring is in view, why do you have to go down into the water in the first place? Well, that is a legitimate question. If sprinkling or pouring were the mode used in the New Testament, why would both of you need to enter into the water together? You could simply get a cup and bring it out and pour it over the person’s head, or sprinkle the person outside of the water. For some reason, every time an individual is baptized, they have to go down into the water.

John 3:23 is an interesting passage about John the Baptizer.

Why would he need plenty of water? If he were sprinkling or pouring, he wouldn't need plenty of water, would he? If a river is flowing say only 6 inches deep, that's plenty of water to baptize tons of people by pouring or sprinkling. So most likely what is in view here is deep water. There was plenty of water for the person to be immersed. Immersion is the only thing that would require plentiful water, so IMO the Bible does seem to indicate a baptism by immersion.

There is also the symbolism intended of baptism. IMO Romans 6:3, 4 is best represented by immersion baptism. The washing aspect of baptism is covered by immersion as well as by pouring. (Though not by sprinkling.)


Now, I decided to pull up an old study I once did on the NT words used...

Just added the above to give us something to discuss. IMO immersion is the biblical mode for baptism. My issue is in requiring someone who was not baptized with that mode to be rebaptized when he was sincerely attempting to obey Christ's command... with making too much of it. I think it can be divisive, which is my concern.

FA

 

The reason the focus was not on the "mode" is because there were no options. There was no need to talk about a "mode" that didn't exist. However, has others have historically poitned out, "mode" of baptism is not really the question of immersion vs sprinkling vs. pouring. Baptism by sprinkling is an oxymoron. It doesn't exist. The "mode of baptism" would be things like running water vs. still, cold water vs. warm, forwards vs. backwards, etc.

 

Interesting question, if baptism is an ordinance that has to be done in a specific manner why is there no instruction on how to baptize?

 

Greetings

Oh, but there are specific instructions.
</font>

• Water</font>
• The Baptism must be done in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.</font>

In what manner the water is applied is irrelevant. </font>[/QUOTE]Let us not forget that it is to be done exactly like Jesus' baptism:

--- NOT for salvation
--- To mark the beginning of one's new life of public ministry for God (Just like Noah).

Lloyd

 

Hi Faith alone

Nice ID!
Super Posts!

It will be nice to see and read more of your grace based posts. There are many human-centered self-righteous posts here.

If you choose, you can be quite busy responding to those who never learn and never come to the truth.

May God truly bless your inputs here.
Lloyd

 

I agree with the emboldened above. FYI, the Greek word is POLLA from POLUS meaning "plentiful, much, many." But IMO there would be no need for plentiful water except if immersion were the mode implimented in those days. As I said before, that particular mode also fits the context and explains Romans 6:3, 4 best.

In general, pouring in the OT was done as a means of expressing someone's being set aside for a special purpose, as in "sanctification." Baptism represents our being placed into the body of Christ. In the early church persecution got to be so bad that often a new believer was required to be discipled one-on-one and not allowed to join the body for 6 months or longer. That was when he was baptized.

I'm not saying that this is the most biblcal way to do it. We should never base our doctrine on history alone. But it is interesting.

BTW, there's a humorous story that was told, though I've forgotten the details, in my Church History class:

Apparently during the baptism of King Aengus (in the middle of the fifth century), St. Patrick leaned on his sharp-pointed staff and inadvertently stabbed the king in the foot during the ceremony. Patrick was quite old at the time and leaned heavily on the staff.

When the ceremony was over, Patrick, seeing a growing pool of blood, suddenly realized what he had done and begged the king’s forgiveness. "Why did you suffer this pain in silence," he asked. Replied the king: "I thought it was part of the ritual!"

Yes, I read that pouring was first practiced in NT times for the very old. Also, because of persecution, the church perhaps began to pour due to security issues.

Amen. Exclusive communion church practices have been very divisive.

BTW, here's a link to some OT baptism practices:

Thx,

FA

 

Why aren't there instructions? Well, there are to some degree. It is to be done to believers. The mode is not specified because it is unimportant. Whether you baptize in cold or warm is irrelevant (except for comfort). Whether in running or still water is irrelevant. Whether backwards or forwards is irrelevant.

We are to baptize believers, and do it in the name of the Christ. Beyond that, there are no specific instructions.

 

Greetings

Pastor Larry has found the centroid of biblical baptism. He says:

Noah exhibited this same outward evidence. The entire Flood Saga happened AFTER Noah was pronounced just, perfect (Gen 6:8-9), and righteous (Gen 7:1).

After the Flood waters destroyed the old world, Noah disembarked from the Ark and constructed an altar as an appeal of an already saved conscience to live the new life toward God by the resurrection of Christ (in the ARK) as verified by I Pet 3:21.

Not for inner salvation!
An external evidence that one has participated in the death of Christ which is being remembered!

Good job Pastor Larry!
Lloyd

 

Now that's what I call a good question!

Personally, I don't like to debate the mode of baptism much, so I think I've posted my last on this thread. That's because IMO we need to be careful about focusing too much on the physical side of issues such as this one.

For those who take water baptism by immersion very seriously I'll just add that while I agree that immersion appears to be the form used and intended, my concern is about exclusive practices in the church which say, "Hey, this is how you need to do this. If you're not doing it like this then you cannot be a part of our church/body."

While no church would ever express it quite like that, it certainly comes across that way.

FA

 

Oh, but there are specific instructions.
</font>

• Water</font>
• The Baptism must be done in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.</font>

In what manner the water is applied is irrelevant. </font>[/QUOTE]Let us not forget that it is to be done exactly like Jesus' baptism:

--- NOT for salvation
--- To mark the beginning of one's new life of public ministry for God (Just like Noah).

Lloyd </font>[/QUOTE]Good point... about marking the beginning of a ministry. That rarely is mentioned.

FA

 

That has been the historic practice of Baptists who take the issue very seriously. Baptists have always said "This is what Scripture teaches and if you don't do it this way, you can't be a part of our church."

The bigger question, to me anyway, is Why would someone not want to be baptized? I don't get that.

 

Hey Riverm

In a rare feature of theology, I agree with you! Communion should be limited to those who are bona fide members of Christ's Church.

This should include all those who have believed in the Lord Jesus Christ. For me, this includes the deceived who think water baptism is important for justification.

Since water baptism is such an important feature of biblical theology, it is right to with hold communion from those who pervert the gospel by proclaiming justification through a human-centered self-righteous theology of death that jettison's Christ's Cross and requires fickle human works of water baptism.

The gospel must be seen in purity. Anyone holding to a perverted view of Christ's righteousness should be barred from communion until they can be taught imputed righteousness through faith alone (Abraham in Romans 4) apart from circumcision, works or sacraments.

So, in a wierd way, I agree with you in that that baptism is a vital teaching and directly related to communion participation.
Lloyd

 

I know of many.

And here you say:

Your right Pastor, the mode of baptism isn’t specified in scripture, because it’s not important, but apparently some Baptist failed to get that memo, because the mode is very important to them. So important that Churches have split over this unimportant issue. </font>[/QUOTE]You are confusing mode of baptism with baptism itself. "Mode" of baptism is not whether you immerse, sprinkle, or pour. Baptism is immersion. Baptism is not sprinkling or pouring. "Mode" of baptism refers to whether you baptize in running water or still, cold vs. warm, forwards vs. backwards, etc. That is not important. It is, however, important to be baptized.

Immersion is not "an interpretation" of baptism. It is what baptism is. Either you get baptized or you don't. It is even redundant to talk about "baptism by immersion." There is no other kind. Don't confuse these issues in your mind.

 

Sorry if this has already been discussed:

Why should whether or not a person has been baptized matter? Baptism doesn't save. I've always seen it as a choice since its not like you won't go to Heaven if you're not baptized. I think as long as a person is saved and feels that they want to partake in communion they shouldn't be stopped from doing so. Any church with any requirements or who will deny any of God's children to have communion probably isn't a church thats growing or doing much for its members. I certainly wouldn't waste my time going to a church with rules against people taking communion(besides them having to be saved), thats just disgusting. It sickens me that any church would have such rules to make visitors feel unwelcome like that, definitely not Christian-like attitude at all.

 

That is debatable as illustrated by the Lexical definitions offered by FA earlier. And just for the record, I don't know of any church that practices sprinkling. We pour, it may not be a huge amount, but the amount is never what mattered. It is the promise of God which truly matters, the water is just an element to which it has been given with.