Was this baptism by immersion?

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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?

 

I like this. :thumbs:

 

Good work on the Greek, Zenas!

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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:

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


HankD

 

What exactly does baptism symbolize according to the NT?

 

I'm on board. :thumbs:

 

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?

 

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.