• 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!

Was this baptism by immersion?

Tom Bryant

Well-Known Member
okay, so baptists tend to see baptism everywhere even when it ain't there. Like the preacher who said, Point 1: Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Point 2: Wives are to be in submission to their own husbands. Point 3: Now a word about baptism. :laugh:

But even though they were wrong to wrench baptism out of going into the water and coming out of the water, they were correct that this is immersion because of the phrase that he baptized him.
 

PreachTREE

New Member
It would have been much easier if the early english translators would have just translated baptizo instead of transliterating it! There would be no argument.
 

Isaiah40:28

New Member
Tom Bryant said:
okay, so baptists tend to see baptism everywhere even when it ain't there. Like the preacher who said, Point 1: Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church. Point 2: Wives are to be in submission to their own husbands. Point 3: Now a word about baptism. :laugh:
LOL That's very funny.

Tom Bryant said:
But even though they were wrong to wrench baptism out of going into the water and coming out of the water, they were correct that this is immersion because of the phrase that he baptized him.
As I'm learning to fine tune my views, I'm seeing the importance of keeping the argument true and consistent.
Make the argument but don't overdo it.

My OP was not well written and I didn't ask my question very clearly.
So I apologize if the posting seems progressive, it is. :)
 

Isaiah40:28

New Member
Aaron said:
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
thanks for the links.
the second one has some of the same information that I found in another article.

here's the similiar info:
In his famous Biblical Thesaurus, Rev. Dr. Hellmuth -- the well-known Professor of Hebrew and Rabbinical Literature -- discusses the meaning of the Hebrew word taabal in the Old Testament. There, he renders it: "dabble, i.e. wetting by little dips or by sprinkling."

Also Dr. Robert Young offers a similar definition of this Biblical word taabal. In his famous Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible, he renders it: "to moisten" or "besprinkle."

Now this Hebrew word taabal is often translated either as baptein, or as its cognate baptizein. Indeed, taabal is so rendered even in the LXX. That latter work, reputedly compiled by some 'seventy' erudite scholars, is the (270 B.C.) old Greek Septuagint translation of the ancient Hebrew Scriptures.

Those many eminent Hebrews who then produced the Septuagint, all professed the one true religion of Ancient Israel! It is thus very significant that precisely they often used the word baptein -- as their own Greek translation of the Hebrew word taabal.

They did so in many places of Holy Scripture. In some of those places, the word taabal cannot possibly imply even partial im-mersion. Still less can it there imply complete sub-mersion! Nowhere is this clearer than in the Septuagint's translation of Josh 3:15f.

For there, we are told that when the priests came to the Jordan river -- they 'bapt-ed.' The Hebrew here has: ni-tebel-oo. The Greek Septuagint renders this: e-baph-eesan -- 'they bapt-ed.' However, we are also told that the Israelites at that very time "passed through" the Jordan -- "on dry ground." Consequently, they 'bapt-ed' without being submersed!

In almost all Bible texts where it occurs, taabal is consistently associated with dyeing or painting or pouring or sprinkling. Take, for example, Ezk 23:15. There, Ezekiel uses the phrase "dyed attire" -- alias the 'painted turbans' which people then often wore "upon their heads." Now "dyed" translates the Hebrew word tebuul-iym -- derived from taabal. Rightly, the Septuagint itself renders this derivative -- bapt-os!

The word baptein itself -- which frequently translates taabal -- often means "to dye." Indeed, the latter is frequently associated with painting -- by way of sprinkling. Compare too the frequentative baptizein (in Isa 21:4) -- with the word "sprinkle" in Isa 52:15 and 63:3. With the two latter verses, also compare Mt 28:19's "baptize" and Rev 19:13-16's "vesture dyed with blood" (or himation bebammenon haimati). There, "baptize" and "dyed" translate derivatives from baptizein and baptein!

here's the link for it:
http://www.fivesolas.com/sprinkle.htm

my husband also has James Dale's 5 volume set on "Baptizo".
anyone familar with that?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Isaiah40:28

New Member
something that struck me strange was on another thread where some posters expressed discomfort over the fact that an elderly sickly gentlemen was not immersed for his baptism.
is that being too picky over the mode?
 

J.D.

Active Member
Site Supporter
There are cases where people can not be immersed due to medical conditions. I personally know of one. He was baptized by - well, I won't call it pouring - it was more like "innundation" - it was like picking the tub up and dumping it out over him. And his body was partially covered by a thick plastic sheet. It was absolutely essential that this dying man keep the lower part of his body dry.

He had made a profession of faith and requested to be baptized. It was the only way we could figure to do it. He understood well that he did not have to be baptized in water to be saved, but his "dying wish" was to obey the Lord's command in baptism. So we accomodated him that way. Were we wrong to do that?
 

TCGreek

New Member
Pastor Larry said:
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.

I like this. :thumbs:
 

TCGreek

New Member
Zenas said:
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."

Good work on the Greek, Zenas!
 

TCGreek

New Member
J.D. said:
There are cases where people can not be immersed due to medical conditions. I personally know of one. He was baptized by - well, I won't call it pouring - it was more like "innundation" - it was like picking the tub up and dumping it out over him. And his body was partially covered by a thick plastic sheet. It was absolutely essential that this dying man keep the lower part of his body dry.

He had made a profession of faith and requested to be baptized. It was the only way we could figure to do it. He understood well that he did not have to be baptized in water to be saved, but his "dying wish" was to obey the Lord's command in baptism. So we accomodated him that way. Were we wrong to do that?

JD,

Many would not agree with either you or me, but I believe the grace of God would take care of this.

We can't be legalistic about this. In fact, Berkhof makes a great argument for "sprinkling/pouring" in his theology.

But I'm all for immersion a believer upon confession of faith in Christ.
 

Allan

Active Member
J.D. said:
There are cases where people can not be immersed due to medical conditions. I personally know of one. He was baptized by - well, I won't call it pouring - it was more like "innundation" - it was like picking the tub up and dumping it out over him. And his body was partially covered by a thick plastic sheet. It was absolutely essential that this dying man keep the lower part of his body dry.

He had made a profession of faith and requested to be baptized. It was the only way we could figure to do it. He understood well that he did not have to be baptized in water to be saved, but his "dying wish" was to obey the Lord's command in baptism. So we accomodated him that way. Were we wrong to do that?
Well put JD, and no, I believe you all were faithful to The Faith. Baptism is symbolic and thus it is necessary to practice it in manner that properly displays that symbolism. However, we must also remember that it is symbolic when there are times where the act can cause harm to the person thus allowing us to modify it as needed.

My only problem is when the exection becomes the norm, or that other forms of 'practiced' baptisms are acceptable beyond the scripturally described one. Pouring or sprinkling are NOT a biblcially authorized form of baptism as something conistantly practiced in place of or equal to that of immersion.
 

Allan

Active Member
TCGreek said:
We can't be legalistic about this. In fact, Berkhof makes a great argument for "sprinkling/pouring" in his theology.
I will agree that Berkhof makes a good argument but it is still lacking in many areas to me.

IOW - If I compare the two (immersion and pouring/sprinkling) I find immersion being the most sound biblically of the two as well as the one consistantly seen depicted in the scriptures. Therefore, I must adhere to immersion as being the main form of practiced baptism from all the facts gathered and it's symbolism.
 

Allan

Active Member
Zenas said:
It seems clear enough to me that the two men went down into the water and Philip put the eunuch under. Then the two men came out of the water. But all the artistic renderings of this event seem to show Philip pouring water on the eunuch's head. Take a look here: http://www.biblical-art.com/biblicalsubject.asp?id_biblicalsubject=414&pagenum=1 Ideas, anyone?
Yes. The paintings were made during an era where Catholism was the main religion, thus in order to sell any painting to the churches or religious people it had to be in accordance with what they believed. Otherwise how would they ever sell a painting, or get the prestigious right to paint churches or homes? What main religous group do you think believes in sprinkling and pouring as a proper mode of baptism - Catholics (with the exception of infant baptism of early Reformers - I can't see anyone seriously dunking a bady :) ).

Much like the majority of the painting we see today of Christ which for the most part came from the Renonssance Era (as well as other saints and the apostles), , where men were dipticted decidedly feminine (long hair, pale white skin, long slender fingers and neck, thin) becuase that was considered beautiful. So Christ was dipicted in the manner consistantly within that time period.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
There are cases where people can not be immersed due to medical conditions. I personally know of one. He was baptized by - well, I won't call it pouring - it was more like "innundation" - it was like picking the tub up and dumping it out over him. And his body was partially covered by a thick plastic sheet. It was absolutely essential that this dying man keep the lower part of his body dry.

He had made a profession of faith and requested to be baptized. It was the only way we could figure to do it. He understood well that he did not have to be baptized in water to be saved, but his "dying wish" was to obey the Lord's command in baptism. So we accomodated him that way. Were we wrong to do that?
Wrong? Not necessarily. But useless? Surely. Because the guy still wasn't baptized. Baptism, by definition, is immersion. Anything than immersion, whatever it might be, and however noble its motives might be, is not baptism.

In cases like this, it would generally be better to wait until the man is better than to salve a conscience with a baptism that really isn't. Dumping a tub of water over someone is not baptism, biblically speaking. It does not conform to the definition, the practice, or the symbolism of baptism.

So I do not question the motives or the heart, but right motives do not change the facts of what baptism actually is.

This is the kind of case where I think we let "feel-goodism" overwhelm the biblical teaching. In an effort to feel good, or help others feel good, we do things that are not biblical and in so doing we provide a false salve to a conscience.
 

HankD

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Historically, baptism comes out of Judaism (the Mikvah) and remains in Talmudic Judaism to this day.

Here is a blurb from Talmudic Judaism concerning the Mikvah:

http://www.his.com/~chabad/mikv.htm

From another Judaism source:

when a person or object changes status, such as when a non-Jew converts or when a vessel changes ownership from a non-Jew to a Jew. Though not a decree from the Torah, many men go to a mikvah at the end of the week in preparation for Shabbat. or a holiday. A bride immerses before her wedding day as do many grooms. All the above reasons have in common their being times of transition, from one spiritual state to another.

http://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/335957/jewish/Mikvah-The-Art-of-Transition.htm


HankD
 
Last edited:

TCGreek

New Member
Pastor Larry said:
Wrong? Not necessarily. But useless? Surely. Because the guy still wasn't baptized. Baptism, by definition, is immersion. Anything than immersion, whatever it might be, and however noble its motives might be, is not baptism.

In cases like this, it would generally be better to wait until the man is better than to salve a conscience with a baptism that really isn't. Dumping a tub of water over someone is not baptism, biblically speaking. It does not conform to the definition, the practice, or the symbolism of baptism.

So I do not question the motives or the heart, but right motives do not change the facts of what baptism actually is.

This is the kind of case where I think we let "feel-goodism" overwhelm the biblical teaching. In an effort to feel good, or help others feel good, we do things that are not biblical and in so doing we provide a false salve to a conscience.

What exactly does baptism symbolize according to the NT?
 

TCGreek

New Member
Allan said:
I will agree that Berkhof makes a good argument but it is still lacking in many areas to me.

IOW - If I compare the two (immersion and pouring/sprinkling) I find immersion being the most sound biblically of the two as well as the one consistantly seen depicted in the scriptures. Therefore, I must adhere to immersion as being the main form of practiced baptism from all the facts gathered and it's symbolism.

I'm on board. :thumbs:
 

TCGreek

New Member
Pastor Larry said:
Dying, being buried, and rising again with Christ to newness of life (Rom 6:4).

Doesn't it also symbolize the washing away of sins and baptism of the Holy Spirit?
 

Pastor Larry

<b>Moderator</b>
Site Supporter
Doesn't it also symbolize the washing away of sins and baptism of the Holy Spirit?
THe baptism of the Holy Spirit yes, and to some degree the washing away of sins, but only inasmuch as the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ took away sin. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is the judicial placement of the believer into the body of Christ which, again, is because of union with Christ in his death, burial, and resurrectino.
 
Top