Quote:
Originally Posted by Aquila
It's fair if you think so. However, I do have a few questions....
Where does the Bible prescribe a specific amount of water required? Nowhere.
Does not "baptizo" also mean "to wash"? Yes.
Does not the Septuagint use the Greek term "baptizmos" when referring to the "washings" of the OT that were administered through both pouring and sprinkling? Yes.
Is not the baptism of the Holy Spirit "poured out"? Yes.
Was not the custom of the Jews to pour water upon the dead to cleans them as part of their burial? Yes. Some have argued that for 3,000 to be water baptized in the name of Jesus in the heart of Jerusalem it would have required pouring or even sprinkling. Although, the mikveh pools around the Temple grounds could have been used for full immersion. However, they would have been stripped down nude like others partaking in mikveh, and the moment Temple authorities heard that the 3,000 overwhelming the pools were being baptized in Jesus name, they would have called in the guards.
Also, the only water mentioned in the passage with the jailor who was saved with his whole household was within the water basin from which his wounds were being washed.
So, frankly, the position is regarded by some as being entirely "biblical". |
The word baptise means literally to 'immerse'. Baptism is not a theological word having varied and sundry meanings depending on the practices of varied and sundry churches. It is a common Greek word, and means to dip, immerse, plunge into or under. It does not have the meaning of 'to pour out'. It has the meaning of 'to immerse'. When an object or person is baptised, they are 'immersed' or dunked, according to the actual meaning of the word.
Remember, it is the person or object which is 'baptised', not the water. Therefore, when reading of baptism, one is reading about an object or a person being immersed, one is not reading about water being poured out.
And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim,
because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.
(
John 3:23)
John immersed people in a particular location 'because there was much water there'. 'Much water' is required for immersion, it is not required for affusion (pouring). He also baptised in the Jordan river. Perhaps he used the river because a river has 'much water' for immersing people?
You obviously have not actually looked up the occurrences of the Greek baptidzo or its relatives in the Greek old testament. Here, let me help you:
The word εβαπτισατο occurs once in the LXX, at 2 kings 5:14:
Then went he down, and
dipped himself seven times in Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was clean.
(
2 Kings 5:14)
Here we see that ebaptismato means to 'immerse'.
The word βαπτιζει occurs once in the LXX, at
Isaiah 21:4:
My heart wanders, and transgression
overwhelms me; my soul is occupied with fear.
(
Isaiah 21:4, Brenton's)
The Apostolic Bible Polyglot translates it as 'transgression
immerses me'. The prophet complains that transgression immerses or submerges him. He does not complain that transgression pours him.
Those are the only two occurrences of 'baptidzo' or its forms in the LXX.
The word 'baptisma' (baptism, 908 in Strong's) does not occur in the LXX.
The word 'baptismos' (washing, literally immersion, 909 in Strong's) does not occur in the LXX.
The word 'baptistes' (baptist, immerser, 910 in Strong's) does not occur in the LXX.
The word 'bapsantes' (from bapto, to whelm, 911 in Strong's) does occur in the LXX, some 20 times:
Ex 12:22,
Lev 4:6, 4:17, 9:9, 11:32, 14:6, 14:16, 14:51,
Num 19:18,
Deut 33:24,
Joshua 3:15,
Judges 5:30,
Ruth 2:14, 1 Sam 2:18, 14:27,
2 Kings 8:15,
Job 9:31,
Psalm 68:23,
Dan 4:33 and 5:21.
It also occurs in the NT three times, in
Luke 16:24,
John 13:26, and
Rev 19:13.
In every single case it means to whelm, to submerge, to dip, to immerse, to cover. Not once does it mean to pour (much less sprinkle).
Exodus 29:4 describes the consecration of Aaron and sons for the priesthood:
And Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation,
and shalt wash them with water.
Here is the LXX: καὶ Ααρων καὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς αὐτοῦ προσάξεις ἐπὶ τὰς θύρας τῆς σκηνῆς τοῦ μαρτυρίου
καὶ λούσεις αὐτοὺς ἐν ὕδατι.
The word 'louseis' is number 3068 in Strong's, and means "A primary verb; to bathe (
the whole person; whereas G3538 means to wet a part only, and G4150 to wash, cleanse garments exclusively): - wash.
The word 'baptidzo' or any form of that word does not appear there, and therefore it cannot be argued that Aaron was to be baptised. Rather, he was to be bathed. While bathing may involve baptising (immersing) it does not follow that baptising (immersion) involves bathing.
So then we see that all your argumentation from the Greek Old Testament is wholly unfounded and based entirely upon a decided lack of knowing what the LXX actually says.
Now, as to your other points:
'Is the baptism of the Holy Spirit poured out? Yes." WRONG. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is NOT POURED OUT. It is not the BAPTISM that is poured out. In fact, if it were, you would have just defeated your own argument anyway lol. What is poured out is the Spirit. The
person receiving the Spirit is baptised (immersed, plunged, covered completely) with the Spirit, and THAT is 'the baptism with or in the Spirit'. To suggest that the baptism with the Holy Spirit is poured out is to say that the immersion is poured out.
Furthermore, water baptism is a literal baptism. Spirit baptism is not a LITERAL baptism nor is it a LITERAL 'pouring out', since the Spirit is omnipresent and is not a physical or material substance like water to be 'poured out' from one location to another. The phrase 'baptism with or in the Spirit' is a METAPHOR, not a description of physics or mechanics.
Jews washing bodies prior to burial proves the point that the washing was not the burial, it preceded the burial. But, baptism is a BURIAL, it is in baptism that we are BURIED with Christ, not 'washed with Him prior to His burial'. So the Jewish corpse washing tradition of men does not prove anything except that pouring is not in fact baptism. Besides, washing a body is not called 'baptism' in the Greek anyway, it's called 'louo'.
The claims that early Chistians were baptised in the nude is ridiculous. There is NOT ONE VERSE that even hints of such a thing in all the Bible. Furthermore, public nudity was contrary to established Jewish morals and propriety. And more importantly, seeing the nakedness of one's near kin is forbidden by God in the Law, so people's households being baptised 'in the nude' would have been a sin as people would have been seeing their near kin naked. and finally, there is no evidence early Christians practiced nude baptism whatsoever. You've repeated an urban legend as though it were fact.
As for the jailer, you said the only water mentioned is the water wherewith he washed the apostles' stripes. You also said it was contained in a basin, implying he only had a wee bit of water to use, and therefore would have been 'baptised' by pouring. Besides the fact you just admitted pouring does not require 'much water', contrary to the practice of John the Immerser, let's look at the actual text:
And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
(
Acts 16:32-33)
I do not see any basin mentioned, nor do I see any particular amount of water mentioned, nor do I see any mention of pouring. I notice however that this took place at the jailer's house. It is possible the jailer had a pool of water at his house (like many houses in that day did, for bathing, washing, and apparently for baptising).
It is utterly unfounded eisegesis to claim this somehow proves pouring as opposed to immersion.
Linear Mode
