What Scriptures support baptism by immersion?

[Smoky]

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]

Smoky --

I am sorry, but you do not understand the Jewish
miqvah at all.

 

[Smoky]

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.

 

[Ray Berrian]

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.

 

[Abiyah]

First, Smoky, in no way do I intend to be
disrespectful toward you. It is just that so many
of the Christians with whom I have had contact
assume so much, then they accept and teach their
own assumptioons as truth, when they have no
basis whatsoever. It gets very tiresome.

Originally posted by Smoky:
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".

This is a common assumption, but it is not true.
Our Lord never made a wholesale condemnation
of the traditions; He condemned only those that
usurped or went beyond what He intended when
He gave the Torah. Those writings are the record
of thought as to how Torah (instruction) is to be
obeyed.

I challenge you to read the Gospels and the other
Apostolic Writings and see where some of the
ideas set forth have no biblical basis at all,
including some of the things our Lord said/did.
Where did these come from? The 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?

My answer would only serve to get this thread off-
topic; therefore, I will not give it.

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.

John was doing a miqvah; many Christians simply
either ignore this or do not understand it. This
practice was as old as Jerusalem. The difference
was that John was announcing that Messiah was
among them, and this would, naturally, cause a stir.

 

[BobRyan]

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

 

[Smoky]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, Smoky, in no way do I intend to be
disrespectful toward you.

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

This is a common assumption, but it is not true.
Our Lord never made a wholesale condemnation
of the traditions; He condemned only those that
usurped or went beyond what He intended when
He gave the Torah.

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.

John was doing a miqvah; many Christians simply
either ignore this or do not understand it. This
practice was as old as Jerusalem.

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

 

[Smoky]

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.

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

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".

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!

 

[Abiyah]

I am sorry, but I can no longer read this thread
because the lines in one of the posts causes the
page to go off-screen.

 

[WPutnam]

Originally posted by Abiyah:
Mr. Putnam --

Yes, that is the meaning of living water.

Yes, I do believe that many fell into grievous error
early on, but our God has promised that there
would always be a faithful people who held on to
Truth. This does not mean that the faithful are
the ones in front, the ones who made the rules.

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!

 

[Ray Berrian]

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.

 

[Smoky]

1 Cor. 10:1-2 (ESV)
I want you to know, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, [2] and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea,

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:

Psalm 68:7-9 (ESV)
O God, when you went out before your people,
when you marched through the wilderness, Selah
[8] the earth quaked, the heavens poured down rain,
before God, the One of Sinai,
before God, the God of Israel.
[9] Rain in abundance, O God, you shed abroad;
you restored your inheritance as it languished;

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

 

[Yelsew]

My friend Yelsew, yes, there is submission, and
yes, it is, by the act, a profession of faith, but so
is salvation. By this concept, every act of faith
would, be necessity, have to be public, but all acts
of faith are not. There remains, as I remember, no
requirement to make baptism public, but doing it
puiblicly is also not condemned.

John's baptism was public. Was the eunoch's? It
only says that the two of them stopped by the
road.

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.

 

[BobRyan]

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

 

[Abiyah]

Yelsew --

Yay! I can read this page! Now, I hope I don't get
cut off again!

Yelsew, some people put a real effort into being
specificaly friendly, and some don't; you do, and it
is noticable.

I still do not see Scriptural proof that baptism must
be public or that they should not. I see nothing one
way or the other. When I go to the miqvah, it is
between my Lord and me and the one woman who
is there as a witness.

 

[Yelsew]

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.

 

[Abiyah]

Many ancient miqvot have been excavated. These
used the diverted waters of rivers, springs, etc, and
had outlets for the water (thus, living water).

When one needed a private miqvah in a river or
lake, family members accompanied them and
provided shelter.

 

[Ray Berrian]

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.

 

[Smoky]

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

As we begin our thinking on this subject, let us place ourselves in the position of a Jew who has been saved in the early Christian era. He is a Jew, and now he has put his faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. His mind has not changed overnight, and certain great truths which his people have known and believed for two thousand years are much in his thinking.

Salvation by Faith Alone
First of all, a Jew saved in the early Christian era would realize that even as he had been justified by faith alone, so also Abraham had been justified by faith alone two thousand years before. Romans 4:1-a makes this abundantly clear: "What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory'; but not before God. For what saith the scriptures? Abraham believed God and it was counted unto him for righteousness." Galatians 3-6 is just as definite: "Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness."

The fact is that the Bible carefully emphasizes that Abraham was justified by faith and that only, lust as we are. It is a serious mistake to believe that anyone in any dispensation, has been or can be saved in any other manner than by faith plus nothing. Religious or moral obedience has no place as far as personal salvation is concerned in any dispensation. Notice that it is Paul's writings that stress this fact so clearly.

The Covenant Is Immutable or-the Unity Of the Covenant
Secondly, the Jew saved in the early Christian days would realize that the Covenant made with Abraham is Immutable, that is, unchangeable. Hebrews 6:13-18: "For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could sware by no greater, he sware by himself. Saying, surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. For men verily sware by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife. Wherein God, willing more abundantly to show unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath: That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us."

This passage is very' definite that, first, the Covenant made with Abraham is unchangeable, and that, second, it includes us who are saved in this dispensation.

Covenant Is Primarily Spiritual
This Jew would also remember that the Covenant made with Abraham was primarily spiritual. For those of us who are Gentiles saved in this era the national promises made to the Jews do not apply, but the spiritual promises do apply. Romans 4:16 is clear concerning this. The 13th verse tells us definitely that God is here speaking of the promise to Abraham, and yet verse 16 is equally clear that we, the Gentiles saved in this present era, are the fulfillment of that promise. "Therefore, it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all." Therefore, the promise could not be primarily national, but spiritual. Galatians 3:7,8,13,14 and 25 tell us exactly this same thing. We, the Gentile Christians, are the fulfillment of the promise made to Abraham; therefore, (though there is a natural, national portion of the Abrahamic covenant) the promise is not primarily national but spiritual. These passages also show that there is a spiritual unity in all dispensations.

Galatians 3:17 makes it abundantly plain that the spiritual promise made to Abraham was not set aside by the giving of the Mosaic Law four- hundred and thirty years afterward. The spiritual unity was not broken by the giving of the law on Sinai.

This Jew of ours, therefore, would have in his mind that Abraham was saved in the same manner as we are saved; and that the promise made to Abraham is Immutable and primarily spiritual; and further, that we who are saved in this dispensation are included in that promise. He would have in mind the Unity of the Covenant.

The Outward Sign
This Christian Jew would also remember that the spiritual promise in the Old Testament days was sealed with a physical sign. Romans 4:10, 1 la: "How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith, and that after he was justified, circumcision was given as a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised." This passage says that Abraham was justified by faith, and that after he was justified, circumcision was given as a seal of the righteousness which was his by faith before he was circumcised.

The Old Testament and the New Testament alike also remind us that the circumcision of the flesh was to be an outward sign of the true circumcision of the heart. In other words, that true circumcision was a spiritual thing. Deuteronomy 10:16 reads: "Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiff-necked." Romans 2:28, 29 says the same thing; "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." Circumcision, therefore, was primarily spiritual.

Further than this, we must never forget that circumcision is not just a sign through the years of Abraham's faith, but it is a sign of the faith of the individual father. The case of the proselyte and his child proves this. Exodus 12;48; "And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall he as one that is born in the land: for no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof." In other words, when a Gentile became a true believer in the living God and wanted to have a part in the religious observances of the Passover, first of all he had to be circumcised, but all his children had to be circumcised too. Thus, circumcision was the sign of personal faith and not just the faith of Abraham.

Therefore, this Jew, saved in the early Christian era, would remember that not only was the promise made to Abraham primarily spiritual, but the outward seal, that was given to show the individual's faith, was also primarily to be of spiritual meaning.

This, of course, is exactly what baptism in the New Testament is; and, therefore, circumcision in the Old Testament was in that dispensation what baptism is in this, Colossians 2:11, 12 is the final proof of this. The King James Version is not as clear as it might be. The American Revised is more accurate and we quote from it. By omitting that which should be in parentheses, this is when we have: "In whom ye were also circumcised in the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism." This being so, the Bible declares that Old Testament circumcision was what baptism is in the New Testament.

Sign Applied to Infants
Now, however, realizing that baptism in the New was what circumcision was in the Old, the Jew of whom we are speaking, saved in the early days of the Christian era, would also know that, in the Old Testament, circumcision as a sign of personal faith was applied not only to the believer himself, but also to all the boy babies in the home.

In applying this sign to the boy babies in the Old Testament, circumcision was still primarily spiritual and not just national. The sign was applied not only to Isaac who was the sole representative of the racial blessing, but to Ishmael as well. Deuteronomy 30:6 makes it plain that the circumcision of the child was primarily spiritual just as was the circumcision of the adult. "And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live."

The Jew living in the early New Testament days would know something further. He would know that in the Old Testament there were two great ordinances the Passover and Circumcision. I Corinthians 5:7, 8, as well as the fact that Christ instituted the Lord's Supper at the time of the Passover meal, makes it plain that the Lord's Supper took the place of the Passover. Colossians 2:11, 12 and the other facts which we have considered make it evident that baptism took the place of circumcision.

These things all being so, it would be impossible for the saved Jew not to expect that, as in the Old Testament the Covenant sign was applied to the believer's child, so also the sign of his faith, baptism, should likewise be applied to his child. Why should he expect less in this dispensation of fullness than he would have possessed in the Old Testament era?

New Testament Practice
These questions would be further aggravated by what this saved Jew himself would have heard taught in the New Testament time. For example, he would have heard Peter in his sermon on the Day of Pentecost, Acts 2: 38, 39: Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call." Remember, Peter said this to Jews, Jews who were used to having the outward sign of their faith applied to their children.

With all these things in his mind, he would expect his child to be baptized. If it were refused, what would you have done in his place? You would have asked the Apostles the reason why. So would the thousands of Christian Jews in that day. The question would have been asked in a hundred meetings; and Peter, John. Paul, and the others would have sat down and written in their Epistles to clear up the matter, just as they answered other questions that arose. The New Testament would have contained the clear answer as to why in the Old Testament the Covenant sign was applied to the infants of believers, but in the New Testament it was to be withheld from them.

The only reason possible for the New Testament not dialing with this problem is that the problem did not exist. The only possible reason that there was no problem in the Jews' minds was that the believing Jews did apply the covenant sign to their children. They baptized their babies as they had circumcised them in the Old Testament dispensation.

In the light of the teaching of the whole Bible, for w not to baptize babies there would have to be a clear command in Scripture not to do so. Instead of that, the emphasis is all the other way. Of the seven cases of water baptism mentioned in the New Testament, three were of families. Someone may say, "But it does not say that them were infants involved." I would point out to you that in the light of the natural expectancy of the saved Jew, if babies were not baptized, the Scripture would have made it clear that such was the case. God deals with families in the 0. T. and in the N. T. too. The promise made to the Philippian jailer, Acts 16:31b, "And thou shalt be saved, and thy house," adequately shows this. No matter what interpretation we, individually, may hold concerning this passage, certainly God here does show that He deals with families not only in the Old Testament but in the New Testament as well.

Let us never forget, God's use of signs is found in every era. He gave Noah the rainbow He gave circumcision and the Passover to the Old Testament Jew. He has given the visible church in this age the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

 

[Abiyah]

I am sorry, but while I appreciate Schaeffer, the
man, the above is wrong, wrong, wrong. One
simply canot believe everything every teacher
teaches or everything one reads in a book.

Baptism is equal to circumcision? Amazing.