What Scriptures support baptism by immersion?

The scriptures that say Jesus and the Ethiopian Eunuch "went down into the water" and "came up out of the water" mean absolutely nothing. The same greek word "into" can just as well mean "to", implying that they merely went to the edge of the water where it could be scooped up for a pouring. This is actually how it is used many times in the New Testament. For example, when Jesus told Peter to go to the edge of the water to take his coin for taxes out of the fishes mouth. Even if it does mean literally that they "went down into the water" it still doesn't prove immersion. One can set at the beach and see kids "go down into the water" and "come up out of the water" all day without even getting their trunks wet. It can refer to wading as well as immersion. People traversing in the wilderness of Judea didn't care to get their feet wet the way we do today. John the baptist conducted his ministry close to the river because he baptized multitudes of people, requirilng not just a canteen, but "much water" as the gospel of John says. It would be convenient for him to dip a "hysop" plant into the water and place it on the heads of his candidates as they went by as it was used for purification rites in the Old Testament. John, being a Jewish priest, like his father Zachariah, was familiar with all the purification rites of the Old Testament, which often called for sprinklings using the hysop. David said,"wash me with hysop and I shall be whiter than snow". The book of Hebrews calls these purification rites "baptisms", as does Josehus and the Greek Apocrapha.

The contention that an immersion is necessary to signify a burial makes no sense at all when all the scriptures are considered.It is also stated that, through baptism, we "put on Christ" and that, through baptism, we are "crucified with Christ". Now how does an immersion under water picture this? Also, remember that Jesus was not buried under ground like most of us are today; he was laid in a tomb, and the ressurection had already taken place before He even came out. Finally the Greek word "buried" actually refers to "funeral rites" and wouldn't just mean how a body is placed under the ground or into a tomb.

Now, how should baptism be performed? The Bible tells us how. Jesus told the people that as John babitzed with water, so He would do with the Holy Spirit. How did this baptism of the Holy Spirit come on the day of Penticost? The Lord "poured out" the Holy Spirit on this day and it clearly says that this "pouring" was a baptism . So John was doing the same thing with water that the Lord did with the Holy Spirit, which was a pouring!

The idea that the original form of baptism was immersion is also fanciful. If the earliest forms of baptism were pourings, as signified by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit in the book of Acts, then how did immersion inter into the church so early, as we can see from the historical records of the early church? Well, a lot of perversions of baptism came very early, such as immerssing people entirely in the nude in order for the water to touch the whole body, along with all the pagan exorcisms, the idea of doing it at Easter time after going through the catachism. The idea was also prevalent in the early church that only one major sin could be forgiven after baptism, causing many people to postpone it until the deathbed, or when all the passions of youth had passed. The Jews at the time had began to practice immersion baptism, contrary to the instruction for purification laid out in the Old Testament. Finally, many in the early church felt that they had to compete with or syncretise with many of the elaborate death and ressurection "passion plays" practised by the "mystery religions" prevalent in the Roman Empire it the time. So, leaving the simple form of baptism practiced by the apostles of the New Testament, they began to practice a more elaborate ceremony, best done by immersion.

 

Abiyah, I know Jewish literature other than the Old Testament probably gives instructions about the Miqvah,such as the Mishna perhaps, but these were the "traditions" condemned by our Lord when He said that the Pharisees perverted the gospel by their "traditions". As Christians, don't we believe the Bible, rather than Jewish literature like the Mishna? Where does the Bible say that the Jewish Miqvah is to be followed by Christians? The only Jewish literature I know of that Christians accept is the Old Testament. When the Pharisees sent messengers to John the Baptist asking why he was baptizing if he were not the "Christ" or the "Prohpet", They were asking why he was performing a rite prophesied in the Old Testament. The Old Testament prophesies the "sprinkling of many nations", and the "outpouring of the spirit" at Pentecost on the many nations represented there. Where does the Old Testament prophesy that John would come performing the Jewish Miqvah? This practised developed extra-biblically between the time of the Old and the New Testament.

 

I think it is a long stretch to say that baptism was always by immersion. The woman at the well had to go daily to the well for water in the time that Jesus met with her. Probably she carried the water on her head for the needs of her family. This included cooking, drinking water and laundry. Not all Christian converts lived near the Jordan River or the Mediterranean Sea; water was at a premium and to even think that baptism involved the immersion of the total body is ludicrous.

Also, in the O.T. the high priest did not immerse the altar with blood, he sprinkled it and himself. I would minister baptism either by sprinkling, pouring or immersion if requested to do so. Sprinkling was the mode of purification for the High Priest who was elected for a one year term.

 

All Christian historians agree that the first century New Testament practice of baptism was of the same form as John the baptist's - full water immersion of believing members.

There is no case of rose pedals, or infant sprinklin, etc documented in scripture. There is no doubt that full water baptism by immersion was practiced.

The "only question" is whether arguments can be made for sprinkling and infant baptism from the "void of what scripture does not say".

And that is the real arena upon which this debate devolves.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I know you're not being disrespectful, your just saying what you think, which is good.

If this is true, then it's the Torah or Old Testament we should go by instead of the traditions, unless the traditions are equally inspired. The traditions would be no more than just sermons to be accepted or rejected depending on whether they usurped the Torah or not. If they mention a type of baptism not mentioned in the Old testament, then we can safely reject it.

Abiyah, I've got to see where this is stated in the Old Testament, otherwise it upsurps and goes beyond what is taught there.

 

I hardly think this is the case; have you read them all?

We shouldn't have to make a case for infant baptism since inclusion into the covenant of infants was part and norm of the Jewish covenant at the time. The burden should be on those who reject infant baptism to show where scriptures forbids it rather than to show where scripture prescribes it!

 

Who were those "faithful people" when the only Christian community around was the Church that came to be called Catholic about A.D. 110?

This existed for about 1500 years before there was a real split in Christianity (Not considering the Orthodox schism for the moment)
and the heresies that came and gone certainly do not count...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!

 

I Corinthians 10:1-4 God indicates that Christ was the Rock to those under the former covenant,[I Cor. 10:4] and He is also the Rock of salvation under this age of grace. [I Cor. 3:11]

If the former covenant is any indication of the way baptism should be ministered, one might come to believe that infants as well as catechumens and adults should be baptized under this age of grace. Notice, under the Old Covenant the cloud released the baptismal water on Moses and his house/people. [I Cor. 10:1-2] Some believe thus that the mode of baptism is sprinkling.

Some Christians believe that infant baptism is the sign of the covenant for this age, while 'the marking of the flesh' of the infant under the covenant of Law was a sign that the baby was officially accepted by God and the Hebrew nation.

In some Christian churches the baptismal font is at the entrance of the sanctuary {in the rear of the church} because they believe that baptism was their entrance into the Kingdom of God. Other Christians do not believe this. Some Christians believe in baptismal regeneration while other Christians do not believe this. Just a tad of Christian history.

 

I used to think that this verse probably had nothing to do with water baptism, but I'm more convinced now than ever that it clearly teaches baptism by sprinkling. I had an immersionist try to convince me once that being "under the cloud" "through the sea" with water on both sides meant that they were "surrounded by water" and therefore taught immersion. He failed to see that the Israelites went across on "dry ground" and couldn't have been surrounded. In fact, the only ones immersed there at the Red Sea were the Egyptians as they were drowned. As for the Israelites, the scriptures are plain as to how they were baptized:

The Israelites were the ones baptized by the rain from the cloud, the people immersed were drowned!

 

Thank you for calling me friend, it is my honor to know you as a friend.

No man can see the heart of another, therefore, the faith of one cannot be known by another without some outward sign(s). Water baptism is the sign of a disciple of Jesus Christ, the sign of the covenant that Jesus established with those who become His disciples. Of course through time, other symbols have appeared such as the Cross, the fish, the sheep, the martyr, and others. But Baptism remains the outward sign of the inward cleansing that the Spirit of God does to all who believe in the Son of God. Is it necessary for baptism to be public? If a tree in the middle of the forest falls, does it make a sound? Yes, but you don't see it fall or hear it unless you are close enough to see and hear it. The same principle applies to baptism. If it is the sign of the covenant of Christ, with no observers, what sign it is? When one is baptised one makes a commitment with other believers, and the other believers have a standard by which they can hold the baptised one accountable. That is why it is necessary to have a public baptism! Without one having the testimony of baptism, there is no standard that applies. Confession with the mouth is truly the standard, but submission to baptism indorses the confession.

You are right, baptism was usually performed in public, because the houses and synagogues did not come equipped with Hot tubs or spas, or swimming pools in those days. Even the Roman baths were "public" baths.

 

Are there "any" references to the Roman Catholic Church as a denomination before the 6th century.

I would be interested to find "one".

In Christ,

Bob

 

I guess what I was saying is that baptisms took place wherever there was sufficient water, and that was unually in a public place.

There was no piped in "running" water, so all water had to be carried from the community well to the homes and wherever else water was used. Most baptisms took place in rivers and streams. Thus by
"tradition" baptisms were by necessity public.

 

Even the Roman baths were "public" baths.

I am agreeing with you here. We also might remember that a Jewish person would not have defiled himself or herself by being immersed, sprinkled or poured in a Gentile pool. One would guess that it would have been very near to impossible to get permission to observe a Christian ordinance in a Roman, public pool.

 

There used to be a thread in the "books" forum which asked the question," Which writers do you respect the most?", and it was of interest to me to observe that one of the names mentioned the most was Francis Schaeffer. I would like to pass this quote along by Francis Schaeffer on infant baptism