Ain't it funny how we can argue points like this, continually, and think that in doing so we are not wasting our time?
Bob | 05.24.04 - 3:10 pm | #

Oh be nice Bob. To me, Jesus got baptised by immersion, I need no other information than that.
Mike Gallaugher | Homepage | 05.24.04 - 3:56 pm | #

We might not be. I was persuaded by these and similar arguments to abandon the Baptist position.
David Heddle | Homepage | 05.24.04 - 3:57 pm | #

Jesus got baptized by immersion? And what makes you certain of this?
David Heddle | Homepage | 05.24.04 - 4:00 pm | #

Why did they need a body of water big enough to stand in? Why not just get a palmful from the eunuch's water supply (surely Candace's treasurer would not depend on a chance supply travelling through the desert) and not bother with wet feet?

Why did John the Baptist choose Aenon near Salem to do his baptizing?

David, you need to think about this more.
Henry IX | 05.24.04 - 10:45 pm | #

David I wasn't there, but according to Matthew 3:16:
"Immediately he went UP from the water" tells me enough.
Michael Gallaugher | Homepage | 05.24.04 - 11:26 pm | #

How do you know "Immediately he went UP from the water" does not mean he climbed onto shore?

And if crowds were coming to meet and observe John, he would have chosen a place with much water regardless of the mode of baptism, for much water would have been needed to meet the needs of the people and their animals.

Keep in mind, I am not saying that John didn't baptize by immersion--I am only saying the scripture does not demand such an interpretation--and to do so starts us down the path of viewing baptism more as something man does rather than something God does. More about that later.
David Heddle | Homepage | 05.25.04 - 5:55 am | #

A couple of quick notes on your two examples. When the Israelites crossed the sea the cloud was not leading them. It had moved from in front of them to behind them. Surely you can picture the cloud passing over them or even engulfing them to make this move. You do not interpret the baptism in the 1Cor passage to mean "led", do you?

As far as the Hebrews passage goes, maybe someone who knows greek can shed some light but isn't baptismos best translated "washing" while baptizo is best translated "immerse"? That seems to be the indication from the lexicons that I have looked at.
Curt | 05.25.04 - 8:57 am | #

My feeling is that the preferrable mode of Baptism is that of standing up to your waist in water and having a lot of water poured over your head. This follows the biblical imagery far better than most other modes, IMHO. It also helps to explain the development of the other forms of Baptism.

If Baptism means 'immersion' in the form that most Baptists practice it, would someone be able to explain how sprinkling as a mode of Baptism developed?

This debate is not unimportant. There are many Baptists who will deny the legitimacy of a Baptism that has not be performed by their form of immersion. By proving the legitimacy — which should always be distinguished from the desirability — of sprinkling as a mode of Baptism we are merely arguing that, contra many Baptists, those who have been baptized by this mode are really baptized members of the Church.

Consequently I do not see this as an unimportant issue.
Al | Homepage | 05.25.04 - 9:44 am | #

Has anyone considered what is to be found on this topic in the Didache ("The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles), arguably the earliest still extant non-scriptural Christian writing (it probably dates from the late first century)?

Here is the relevant passage in question:

And concerning baptism,thus baptize ye: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if thou have not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in cold, in warm. But if thou have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but thou shalt order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

Now I am not saying that this document in itself is authoritative. But I do think that it can give us an insight into the way in which the earliest Christians understood the ways in which baptism can occur.
Sean Gallagher | 05.25.04 - 9:51 am | #

Michael Gallaugher,
I don't believe that the verse that you quote proves that Jesus was baptized in the common Baptist way. Indeed, in Acts 8:39, we see the same description being applied to both the baptizer and the baptizand.

Bob,
the debate over the meaning of baptizo is ultimately about whether any modes other than immersion (as Baptists practice it) are valid. The vast majority of 'sprinklers' will accept the validity of Baptism by 'full immersion'. The debate has only become so important because many 'full immersionists' deny the legitimacy of sprinkling and, consequently, the Baptisms of those baptized by this mode.

I am sure that if someone denied that you were baptized and claimed that you have no right to participate in the Lord's Supper (as many Baptists do to both children and adults baptized by sprinkling) you would think that it was a big issue.
Al | Homepage | 05.25.04 - 9:53 am | #

Romans 6:4a "Therefore we were buried with Him by baptism into death..."

Colossians 2:12a "Having been buried with Him in baptism..."

I take these verses to indicate that the symbolic significance of baptism is best expressed through immersion.
Jeffrey L. Whitledge | Homepage | 05.25.04 - 10:56 am | #

Jeffrey hit on it perfectly, remember what Baptism means, it's a picture of a death and resurrection, and a cleansing from sin. For practical purposes (medical issues, time restraints) only fools would argue there's something magical about the water and immersion is the only qualifier. Fair enough?
Mike Gallaugher | Homepage | 05.25.04 - 11:24 am | #

I will start to believe that Baptists really take seriously what the Bible says about the administration of the sacraments when they return to the biblical and historical practice of using alcoholic wine for the celebration of the Supper.

At the moment, however, I am simply struck by the sickening hypocrisy of their position. Somehow they can deny the legitimacy of everyone else's Baptisms because they weren't performed their way, but yet they can flagrantly abuse the clear biblical (and historical) requirements for the celebration of the Supper.

One gets the distinct impression that this is more about sectarianism than the Scriptures. If Baptists demonstrated more humility in their position and a greater willingness to be subject to Scripture even when it is hard and goes against their grain, the rest of the Church might give them more of a hearing.
Al | Homepage | 05.26.04 - 5:20 am | #

where are we required to use alcoholic wine and unleavened bread to performt he lords supper? in my mind jesus took the common elements in front of him and applied a symbolic represntation to them. to put this in todays terms he may well have used the left over pizza crust and the bottom of a bottle of coke after a meal was finished..
we are instructed to follow in like manner, that doesnt mean we need tp get dressed in the clothes of the period, sit they way they were sitting or say exactly the same thing, but as the pauline epistles are full of " have the same mind as Christ"

i think the same can apply to baptism. it is not so much the act as the intention. hypothetically, could an astronaut in free fall brought to salvation be baptised symbolically where no body of water is available?
tim | Homepage | 05.26.04 - 9:04 am | #

Someone explain to me where we baptists got the silly idea that baptizo has anything to do with immersion.
Curt | 05.26.04 - 11:36 am | #

"in my mind jesus took the common elements in front of him and applied a symbolic represntation to them..."

I have to disagree on this point, as the elements were anything but common. Every part of the Passover meal had a symbolic purpose by Judaism at the time and enhanced by Jesus' own teachings. For instance, leaven was (and still is) considered a symbol of sin. This becomes important when Jesus claims, "This is my body," for we recognize that Jesus lived a life without sin. Similarly, the cup that was taken up "after supper" was likely the third of four ceremonial goblets of wine drunk at the Passover feast. By Jewish tradition, the third cup was known as the Cup of Redemption, for which the Jews celebrated the fact that God "redeemed them with an outstretched arm."
Every Jewish feast was established for the purpose of remembrance. How beautifully appropriate that Christ used these elements to point to Himself, saying, "Do this in remembrance of me."
J.C. | 05.27.04 - 1:03 pm | #

I am a Baptist and I am for the use of wine in Communion. But I would like to know what poverty-stricken natives in Africa or South America are supposed to use. I don't think wine is readily available to them. So, are these believers supposed to NOT have Communion. Are they to wait until Presbyterians ship them some?
Denise | 05.31.04 - 6:47 pm | #

Well, Denise, what about drought-stricken natives in Africa? Are they supposed to practice full-immersion Baptism? It is generally unhelpful to bring extreme cases into the debate. These must be dealt with on a case by case basis, as exceptions to the rule.

I believe that alcoholic wine is intergral to the meaning of the Supper. However, were alcoholic wine not available I believe that God is not so pedantic as to refuse the use of some appropriate substitute. I don't expect that, were wine hard to obtain, pasteurized grape juice would be much easier — I may be wrong.

What should the choice of the 'appropriate substitute' hinge upon? Most Zwinglians would look for something that is not too dissimilar from blood in colour. I do not think that this is unimportant (although the colour is not stipulated in Scripture), but I would be more inclined to seek some other fermented drink as that of primary significance. This would preserve more of the symbolism, IMHO, than a mere red drink.

Others have argued (e.g. James Jordan, Joachim Jeremias) that, as the Supper is a clearly two-stage rite, the wine part could be left out altogether for a period. This argument is not without force. God did not have any drink offerings in the wilderness. There is a connection between the grain and drink offerings and the Supper. Perhaps there are times when the wine part of the meal is even inappropriate (though I can also think of good alternative arguments). I would need to give a whole lot more thought to the question, however.

Whatever conclusion we reach on this matter, however, will not be seen as normative practice. Were Baptists to grant the possibility of sprinkling in the case of drought, it would be clear that they would still oppose it as a general practice in the Church of God and to be avoided when at all possible. The same could be said in this case.

FWIW
Al | Homepage | 06.01.04 - 5:08 am | #

Well, Al,

I do not regard my comment as either extreme or unhelpful. Not extreme as millions of people do not have access to red wine. And not unhelpful since you expounded eloquently for several paragraphs on the issue I raised.

And yes, natives of Africa who are Baptist do practice full-immersion baptism. Finding water to be baptised in has not been that big of a problem.

The Baptist position is not one of sickening hypocrisy. The issues of baptism and the Lord's Supper are not the problem here. It is only the smoke that obscures the fire. The real issue is Covenant Theology. One can't be in agreement on baptism or the Lord's Supper if in disagreement over Covenant Theology.
Denise | 06.02.04 - 12:13 am | #