Was this baptism by immersion?

You're looking at "went down into the water" and "came up out of the water." You're right, these don't show with any certainty that there was an immersion. However the phrase "Philip baptized him" does show an immersion. "Baptize" is derived from the Greek word "baptizein", which evolved from the Greek work "baptein" which means "to dip."

 

I don't believe the plain of the water determines baptism in this sense: one is still baptized by immersion even if they didn't get totally under the water, but did intend to be totally immersed as being under the water.

To nit-pick is to nit-pick, and I don't have lice.

Sprinkle? Not!

 

Immersion is valid, that's not the argument. The argument is that it's the exclusive mode. And you're right, these verses don't prove that.

Another person mentioned the meaning of the word. It means "dip." I'll go with that though I'm not a legalist to say that it is the only valid mode. It's like saying that communion must be a big dinner instead of the little crackers and tiny cups.

I can see why pouring or sprinkling would be preferred for those who are bed-ridden or cannot otherwise be immersed.

 

I've heard some people try to use those phrases to make that point, but I don't think they are correct. The word that's transliterated as "baptize" means "to dip, plunge, or immerse."

That's really all the evidence you need.

 

The phrase "down into the water" is not here used as an equivalent for "baptize" (as you are trying to make it out to be). If it were, then the passage would be redundant, saying "they baptized (went down into the water) so that he could be baptized."

The point of "down into the water" is that there was no way to baptize without both of them going "down into the water." That is because in order to "baptize" there had to be enough water to "go down into." Sprinkling or pouring would not need a situation where they could "go down into the water."

 

My comment wasn't perjorative. It was a comment on your current understanding.

I understand.

First, I reject the terminology of "Baptist view of immersion" as prejudicial. Let's remove it from the realm of a denominational label and examine what the Scriptures say without prejudice.

Second, the phrases certainly teach attendant circumstances that are necessary for baptism. There was no reason for Philip and the eunuch to "go down into the water" if sprinkling or pouring was going to be used to baptize. They went down into the water because that was the only way to get into a position to baptize the eunuch. They could not baptize him without going down into the water.

So again, "down into the water" is not baptism, since as you rightly pointed out, PHilip also went down into the water. You seemed, in your first post, to be trying to equate "down into the water" with baptism, and I have never seen a Baptist make that argument. The argument is that they went down into the water because that was the only way that they could immerse the eunuch. And it is an argument that has no real refutation that doesn't involve special pleading.

But the phrases certainly and without question indicate that immersion was biblical baptism since the phrases describe what was necessary to get into a place where baptism could be carried out.

 

Where's the scriptural support to make the claim that Phillip poured water from his hand onto the eunuch? That's something you're inserting into the text.

They don't, but the very word "baptism" does. The world "baptism" is actually a transliteration of the Greek word, "baptizo", which means to dip, plunge, or immerse. That's the evidence.

Going down into the water and coming out of the water is simply describing how they got into a body of water where the eunuch could be immersed.

 

There is no need to walk "into" and "out of" the water if all that is needed is handful of water to pour over the eunuch. Furthermore, there is no need to use the word baptize when something other than baptism is in view. The words for pour or sprinkle are never used for baptism in the NT, and with good reason: Baptism is not pouring or sprinkling.

What you describe here going be accomplished simply by going down beside the water, not "into" it. That is not what the text says.

 

Okay, but in that case, only Phillip needed to go "down into the water."

 

I think you are stretching in the worst kind of way here to avoid what the text says.

 

That is something missed by almost every Baptist expositor. It's as if none of them has ever filled a vessel by dipping it into a pond or creek. Getting into the water is just as expedient for pouring or sprinkling as it is for immersion.

As Baptist Believer stated, the mode isn't in the the fact of the candidate and administrator getting into the water, it's in the meaning of the word baptism.

Here are two links discussing the meaning of the word baptizo. One is from a Reformed source. Baptists tend to exclude any meaning for the word other than "dip." I'm a dunker myself, but as I said, I'm not legalistic about it.

http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=907

http://www.wrs.edu/Materials_for_Web_Site/Courses/Theology_4/Chapter_8-Mode_Baptism.pdf