The Baptist requirements for communion?

[Faith alone]

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:

dip, immerse, mid. dip oneself, wash (in non-Christian lit. also ‘plunge, sink, drench, overwhelm
Bauer, Walter, Gingrich, F. Wilbur, and Danker, Frederick W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) 1979.

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...

1 Corinthians 1:14-17 I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one can say you had been baptized in my name. I did, in fact, baptize the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't know if I baptized anyone else.

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel--not with clever words, so that the cross of Christ will not be emptied of its effect.

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

 

[Faith alone]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />If someone has been baptized by the Holy Spirit, yet not water baptized by a person by immersion, does it make sense to deny our Lord's Supper?

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.

 

[Faith alone]

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.

"John was also baptizing at Aenon near Salim because water was plentiful there..."

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...

I used Kohlenberger's (et al) Exhaustive Concordance to the Greek NT to count the usages of the related "baptism" terms. Here's what I came up with. (My count could be a little off. In two instances the BGAD lexicon I used and Kohlenberger disagreed.) But there are 5 words... 3 nouns and 2 verbs:

BAPTIZW (verb) - "to dip, immerse, wash, plunge, drench, soak..."
Used 77 times.

BAPTISMA-[TOS] (noun) - "baptism."
Used 19 times. The interesting thing about this word is that it is used ONLY in the NT and Christian writings. It seems to have been invented by Christians. (Key example - Romans 6:4)

BAPTISMOS (noun) - "a dipping, washing."
Used only 4 times: Mark 7:4, Col. 2:12, Hebrews 6:2, 9:10 (Only word used for "baptism" in Hebrews - which was written to Jewish Christians.

BAPTISTHS (noun) - "Baptist, Baptizer. Surname of John"
Used 12 times - only in synoptic gospels. (Gina, it would seem that this is the word that the Baptists base their name upon. Do you think?)

BAPTW (verb) - "To dip [in something], plunge, as in to dip in dye."
Used only 4 times also: Luke 16:24, John 13:26 (twice), Revelation 19:13
The apostle John used both verbs, and is the only writer to do so. He accounted for 3 of the 4 uses of this word.
From what I could tell, this word is used to refer to dipping into something, as in dipping into blood (see Revel. 19:13) When Jesus dipped the morsel of bread in the gravy and handed it to Judas, this word is used (2 of 4 NT uses). In Luke 16:24, the reference is to Lazarus dipping his finger in water and bringing it to the rich man because of his torment. I don't think this word ever has anything to do with Christian "baptizing" or Jewish ritual washings.


OK, BAPTISTHS is John's surname, so I wouldn't think much about it - it seems to have been created to refer to what he did - He was "the Baptizer." It was actually an articular participial form - "the one who baptizes." And BAPTW is only used to refer to dipping an object into something, and is not used to refer to baptism in the NT at all. So that leaves us with 3 words - a verb (only one used) and 2 nouns. One of those nouns (BAPTISMA) is only used by Christian writers, so I think we are justified in saying that it does have spiritual significance. The other noun (BAPTISMOS) is only used 4 times and basically refers to washings. In Mark 7:4 it is referring to Jewish ceremonial washings. But in Col. 2:12 it definitely takes on a spiritual nature ("having been buried with Him in "'baptism'/'washing'"), and is the only place where Paul uses the term. But in Hebrews 6:2 the idea is of "ritual washings," and in Hebrews 9:10 it clearly is referring to "ritual washings" as well.

But that makes the use of BAPTISMOS in Col. 2:12 very interesting, and hard to draw definitive conclusions about as well. It does appear that Paul possibly links the ritual Jewish washings to Christian baptism, though. IOW, the basis for Christian baptism, and John's, was the ritual Jewish washings. So the focus of the words seems to be on dipping to cleanse. In Romans 6:3, 4 we see a clear tie in to a symbolism of death and resurrection. (Both the noun BAPTISMA and the verb BAPTIZW are used there.)

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

 

[riverm]

Thanks for everyone’s replies thus far.

Faith alone touched on a lot of information that I was going to comment on, in regards to Philip and the eunuch as “They came up out of the water.” I have to agree with FA that I doubt both were totally immersed.

Also in regards to “much water.” I’m no Greek scholar, but I am sure there’s a Greek word for “deep.” So “much water” could mean a large body of water, not necessarily deep water, only that there was a lot. I love to creek fishing and have been in “much water” no deeper than the knee.

Still scripture is silent on any explicit detail on how to administer the water in water baptism, but what is important IMO, is that the person is baptized “In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” That’s the key to a baptism that’s authentic, not the mode.

There’s lots of situations where baptism by immersion would be impossible and only sprinkling or pouring would the only other method.

Pastor Larry made a comment about protecting the Lord’s Table. How can one possibly protect the Lord’s Table? Anybody can still walk into my church and take communion. I can even walk into a Catholic Mass and take communion. Communion is intimate; it’s between you and the Lord, which is why we should examine ourselves before we partake in communion.

 

[Pastor Larry]

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

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.

 

[Chemnitz]

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?

 

[riverm]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
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?

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.

 

[ascund]

Greetings

Originally posted by riverm:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Chemnitz:
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?

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

 

[ascund]

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

 

[Faith alone]

Originally posted by riverm:
Thanks for everyone’s replies thus far.

Faith alone touched on a lot of information that I was going to comment on, in regards to Philip and the eunuch as “They came up out of the water.” I have to agree with FA that I doubt both were totally immersed.

Also in regards to “much water.” I’m no Greek scholar, but I am sure there’s a Greek word for “deep.” So “much water” could mean a large body of water, not necessarily deep water, only that there was a lot. I love to creek fishing and have been in “much water” no deeper than the knee.

Still scripture is silent on any explicit detail on how to administer the water in water baptism, but what is important IMO, is that the person is baptized “In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” That’s the key to a baptism that’s authentic, not the mode.

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!"

Originally posted by riverm:
There’s lots of situations where baptism by immersion would be impossible and only sprinkling or pouring would the only other method.

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.

Originally posted by riverm:
Pastor Larry made a comment about protecting the Lord’s Table. How can one possibly protect the Lord’s Table? Anybody can still walk into my church and take communion. I can even walk into a Catholic Mass and take communion. Communion is intimate; it’s between you and the Lord, which is why we should examine ourselves before we partake in communion.

Amen. Exclusive communion church practices have been very divisive.

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

http://www.bible.org/docs/theology/c...sgroupc-02.htm

Though other forms of ablution were practiced in Second-Temple Judaism (e.g., handwashing, footwashing, sprinkling), John’s baptism involved bathing, that is, an immersion.46 This is not surprising, since bathing was a common form of Jewish ablution.47 Most descriptions of John’s baptism associate it with the Jordan River (e.g., Mark 1:5, 9–10). The use of flowing water (or “living” water) was required in the Hebrew Bible for the most severe forms of uncleanness,48 and in Second-Temple Judaism flowing water or rivers were associated with repentance and forgiveness.49 In light of this context, John’s use of flowing water for his baptism is quite understandable. The particular river associated with John’s baptism is the Jordan River. While this may have no significance, it does place John in the wilderness context.50 Both the wilderness and the Jordan River were important symbols of the Exodus and Conquest in the ideology of prophetic movements of the Second-Temple period.51 Since other features of John’s ministry show links with such ideology, John’s use of the Jordan River probably does have symbolic significance.52

An interesting feature of the form of John’s baptism is that it is described as being performed “by John” (uJp* ajutou', Mark 1:5; cf. v. 9), and John himself states, “I baptize …” (Matt 3:11 = Luke 3:16; Mark 1:8). All evidence in Second-Temple Judaism points to Jewish ritual bathing practices’ being self-administered. John’s participation in the act of baptizing, therefore, is probably John’s innovation and may have contributed to his nickname, “the baptizer.”

...
In the Hebrew Bible it would appear that actual immersions were only used when the contagion (i.e., that which caused the uncleanness) was something physical. But in the Second-Temple period, the use of immersions expanded to include cleansing from uncleanness caused by moral contagion as well. For example, Sib. Or. 4:165–67 contains an exhortation to “wash your whole bodies in perennial rivers. Stretch out your hands to heaven and ask forgiveness for your previous deeds… .”64 John’s use of baptism to cleanse from moral contagion is consistent with this expanded use of immersions in the Second-Temple period. It also coheres with John’s concern with repentance and forgiveness in conjunction with his baptism.

Thx,

FA

 

[Pastor Larry]

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.

 

[ascund]

Greetings

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

Baptism is the outward evidence that one has participated in the death of Christ which is being remembered!

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

 

[Faith alone]

Originally posted by Chemnitz:
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?

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

 

[Faith alone]

Originally posted by ascund:
Greetings

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by riverm:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Chemnitz:
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?

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

 

[Pastor Larry]

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.

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.

 

[riverm]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
The bigger question, to me anyway, is Why would someone not want to be baptized? I don't get that.

Personally, I know of no Christian that has not been baptized or never wanted to be. The bigger question is the purpose of this thread. Why prohibit a Christian from the Lord’s Table because his baptism isn’t in agreement with your interpretation of the mode of baptism.

Pastor Larry either the mode of baptism is important or it isn’t. Just a few posts ago you plainly stated that:

The mode is not specified because it is unimportant.

And here you say:

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."

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.

 

[ascund]

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

 

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by riverm:
Personally, I know of no Christian that has not been baptized or never wanted to be. The bigger question is the purpose of this thread.

I know of many.

Why prohibit a Christian from the Lord’s Table because his baptism isn’t in agreement with your interpretation of the mode of baptism.

Pastor Larry either the mode of baptism is important or it isn’t. Just a few posts ago you plainly stated that:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The mode is not specified because it is unimportant.

And here you say:

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."

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.

 

[jaded_chaos]

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.

 

[Chemnitz]

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.

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.