Dead Orthodoxy

A copula is a non-action verb. The copula’s function is to connect the subject and the predicate nominative or predicative adjective in a sentence. Most often, the copula is the verb “to be” but more complex copular constructions, use copular based verbs such as grow, stay, feel, sound, etc. The usage of the copula fulfills one of the most basic functions of language. It allows people by simple and ordinary means to describe their world and experiences in a direct way. The function of the copula only does two and only two things. It either describes or renames the subject of the sentence. Examples of copula-predicate nominatives which renames the subject. ▪ The baby is a boy. ▪ The car is a Ford. ▪ The grass species is dichondra. ▪ Les Misérables is a novel by Victor Hugo. Examples of copula-predicate adjectives which describe the subject. • The baby is sickly. • The car is green. • The grass is dying. • Victor Hugo’s novel Les Misérables is full of interesting characters. When Jesus said “This is my body” he is using a copula-predicate nominative grammatical construction. The “body” renames the personal pronoun “this” for bread. This is the correct grammatical meaning even if we can’t fully understand it.

"The Corinthians were certainly zealous about the significance of water baptism." Correct. The baptism of the dead in I Cor 15, is a curious passage. What makes interpreting this passage so difficult is we have no parallel passage to help us understand what Paul is exactly means here. This passage has been interpreted in different ways over the centuries and I am certainly not going to state what this passage fully means. My guess is the simplest solution. The context is the resurrection at the second Advent of Christ. Perhaps the Corinthians were baptizing their dead unbelieving relatives or even baptizing over their graves in the hope that they would be resurrected. This seems to be an aberrant practice as a dead person has no soul. What is equally perplexing is Paul neither condemns nor condones this practice. He just states what is occurring in the Corinthian congregation and continues on with his teaching of of the resurrection.

I see unbelievable exegetical and interpretive brilliance in your statement. 1. First of all, you cherry pick a genre of NT writing YOU THINK water is not mentioned and then try to make some point. Whatever that is. Of course water is mentioned in the Epistles. Water is mentioned in I Peter 3:19-20 in context with baptism. Water is also mentioned in Eph 5:26 where Paul uses the word “wash” as a synonym for baptism. 2. The book of Acts gives us examples of how baptism is to be administered. The Epistles teach what baptism does and how it is to be applied in Christian life and living. Two distinct concepts. 3. We interpret Scripture on the basis of the totality of the NT. If water is not specifically mention in one book of the Bible, then we use the interpretative rule “Scripture interprets Scripture” and we find it in another. Take for example the word “repent.” Jesus calls us to repent in Luke 5 "I have not come to call the righteous but sinners to repentance.” But the word repentance not found in the majority of the NT books. Less than half. Does this mean that we don’t have to repent? Nonsense. The question is raise is there enough evidence based upon the TOTALITY OF THE NT that repentance is to be practiced among believers. YES. PETERLAG: From reading your posts on different threads you seem to a bee in your bonnet if water is specifically not mentioned in a text, it is not baptism. You have made your point here and you don’t have to repeat on this anymore. ANALOGY OF FAITH: All Scripture is to be interpreted with reference to all other Scripture. In other words, no single text or expression of Scripture is to be isolated or interpreted in a way contrary to its general teaching.

The statement about John the Baptist is from a listing of quotations from others on WCF. I have not made a statement about John the Baptist nor commented on him prior to this post. John the Baptist baptism is not equivalent to Christian baptism. I can't recall all the reasons...but one of the key reasons is found in Act 19. The disciples of John hadn't heard about the Holy Spirit. And since the Holy Spirit is in the Triune formula, it is deduced this can't be Christian baptism. We don't even know if John used any formula for baptism. This is why Paul had them baptized.

In the Great Commission Jesus gives His Church the general marching orders to baptize and to teach all nations. How this is to be done is spelled out in the Apostolic writings. Not all Apostolic writings contain information on baptism, just as not all apostolic writings contain all the necessary data on any one of the teachings of Scripture. However, when the NT corpus is taken as a whole, we have all the necessary teachings. To say Jesus didn’t teach repentance in baptism is quite correct, but Peter did. To say Peter didn’t teach using the Trinue formula, is quite correct, but Jesus did. We should not isolate minute passages of Scripture and then demand all aspects of the biblical teaching on that subject it to be located minutely within that passage. This is demanding Bible Dictionary “speak” to the NT documents. This is demanding a level of precision in interpreting Scripture, which the Scriptures do not give. The NT documents are not written like municipal codes such as an “easement means this” or a “resident means that” The Bible is composed of letters and histories which are to be interpreted as such. Even though the Bible is more than literature, it is literature none the less. We are called to study the “whole counsel of God” find the generalized patterns and believe them. Isolated texts don’t interpret the whole of Scripture, the whole of Scripture interprets isolated texts. All this comes down to the historic rule for interpreting Scripture: THE ANALOGY OF FAITH: All Scripture is to be interpreted with reference to all other Scripture. In other words, no single text or expression of Scripture is to be isolated or interpreted in a way contrary to its general teaching.

Baptism in the NT contains the earthly element water & the Triune Formula. Jesus commands us to baptize “in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” in the Great Commission. The only place Scripture commands His church to use the Triune Formula is in Baptism. This unique command from Jesus serves as a marker for his Church on how Baptism is to be administered. To ensure this command is carried out within the Church God has established a particular office within the Church to preach the Word and administer baptism. A person is selected with the criteria Paul laid out and administers baptism on behalf the entire local congregation. Baptism is always applied to a person passively…meaning you don’t baptize yourself. Another Christian baptizes you. The appointed pastor or minister knows this command of Jesus as performs baptism accordingly. Being baptized in the “name of the F, S, and HS" all massive implications within NT theology. And tomes have been written on his issue. But that is beyond my level. But what I will say, is the Triune formula has been historically used to distinguish between a valid baptism from an invalid one. But that may or may not be apart of a later post.

From the standpoint of Scripture, I don't see God is any more pleased with any mode of baptism, whether it be immersion, sprinkling, or pouring. Although some modes are more pleasing to certain Christians than others. Christians should unite in the commonality of the modes....God's true name place upon you by another Christian in baptism. For without God's true name placed upon you, all modes whether it immersion, sprinkling, or pouring is NO BAPTISM. It is just water.

Theoretical testing of the plain text rule. Supposing I were to place an ad on Craigslist asking for thirty known atheists to interpret Acts 9:18 and each would receive $100. An explanation would be given on the various modes of baptism used historically (immersion, sprinkling, pouring). Then I would give a visual example of each mode. After reading the whole chapter nine, they then would try to determine what mode was used in 9:18. The result would be inconclusive, but they would certainly rule out immersion. The same would be about Acts 22. Thirty atheists would agree that Paul was not immersed. What is so hard about understanding this? Please give a clear reason why immersion baptism is employed here. Have you ever heard of confirmation bias?

Etymology & baptism as submersion There are two ways to look at this. 1. Does the etymology of any word determine contextual meaning? OR 2. Does the context determine whether or not the etymology of a word should be present. Common Hellenistic words such as flesh, heaven, God and faith, do not have the same meaning for the pagan Greek as they do for Christian. Hundreds of ancient Greek words have migrated into the NT and other languages and take on new meaning. A change in meaning occurred at the time of the NT from baptism being some act of submersion to simply the application of water to the human body (Luke 10:38, Mark 7:2-4). This is change of meaning is demonstrated when Ananias baptized Paul inside the house of Judas (Acts 9:18). Additionally, Paul tells us Ananias specifically told him to stand for baptism (Acts 22:16). We have two separate texts commenting on the same event, confirming baptism was administered to Paul in a standing position. A reasonable person should come to this conclusion. This is the plain and ordinary meaning of the text. Immersion seems to be excluded here.

Would both the both of you stop bantering on this thread. It is annoying. Peterlag instigates this, and waggles reacts against it. THIS WHAT PRIVATE EMAILS ARE FOR ON WCF. If this continues, I will make a formal complaint against Peterlag. I won't against waggles. Waggles at least tries to a cogent argument whereas Peterlag babbles nonsensical contrarianism with everyone.

“To baptize ” in Hellenistic Greek is a factitive verb. A factitive verb expresses the fact of wetting without implying or specifying the mode to be employed or any “state of being” wet, either permanent or temporary. Common examples immersionists will give citing Hellenistic literature would be drowned person, a sinking ship, a shipwreck, and the brining of pickles. However, these examples are not exactly identical to what Christian immersion baptism is. · A drowned person is in a permanent state or condition in the water and cannot egress from the water. · A sinking ship is in the temporary state of floating, but will soon be submerged permanently. · A shipwreck by definition is in a permanent condition on the ocean floor. · Cucumbers are in a brining solution for weeks, but then come out. Hellenism also gives a much wider meaning to the term baptism, as it conveys the idea of dipping, plunging in any medium or substance. The myth of Odysseus and Polyphemus the Cyclops is an example. Odysseus is trapped in a cave by Polyphemus. So Odysseus gets Polyphemus drunk. And while the Cyclops is sleeping, Odysseus takes his staff and plunges (baptizes) it into his single eye and escapes. Christian immersion baptism is bi-directional. In many cases, Hellenism portrays baptism is uni-directional. The Hellenistic Greek gives much more latitude in meaning and is seen as fluid in its application. NEW TESTAMENT DEVELOPMENT OF BATIZO Before the NT was written, the Jews first took the Hellenistic word “baptism” out of its original Greek context and used it for the name of a Jewish ritual for washing. We see this in Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:2-4. The Greek word BAPTIZO is translated as “to wash” in English. Contextually, this is neither bi-directional or uni-directional immersion. A change of meaning occurs in Luke and Mark concerning BAPTIZO. Then Jesus takes this concept and adds God’s true name to baptism in the Great Commission. Paul then continues to expound this “wash” motif as a synonym for baptism in passages Eph. 5:26, Acts 22:16, Titus 3:5, and I Cor. 6:11.

This question has been asked and answered a bazillion times on the internet. Your question raises a possible point of an internal contradiction in Scripture. If Jesus did not send Paul to baptize, then why did he baptize Crispus, Gaius and the household of Stephanas? Was Paul sinning when he baptized them? Was Paul lying when he told the Corinthians Jesus told him not to baptize and he did anyway? This is why there are so many good articles on the internet resolving this apparent contradiction. Below are some links. Why not study them and then share your thoughts on WCF. https://evidenceforchristianity.org/why-did-paul-say-he-was-not-sent-to-baptize-if-baptism-is-important-to-salvation/ https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/christ-did-not-send-me-to-baptize http://www.bibleanswers.ie/short-bible-studies/56-baptism/248-christ-sent-me-not-to-baptise

Immersion baptism doesn’t seem to occur with the baptism of Paul. (Acts 9:18-19) Ananias enters the house of Judas lays hands upon Paul… “ And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized; and he took food and was strengthened. It appears that baptism was administered to Paul in a standing position in a house.

THE DEFINITION OF BAPTISM: Baptism is the application of water to the human body with the Triune formula. The only time Scripture commands us to use God’s true name “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” is in baptism. Jesus teaches this in the Great Commission. Water and the true name of God is what define baptism at the most elemental and basic level. Think about when you were baptized….it was water and the name of God applied to you personally by another Christian. This is Christian baptism. And the simplicity of this divine command has been practiced by Christians for 2,000 years. In my next post, I will examine a text from Acts which is seldom concerning the mode of baptism. And with that....let the debate begin.

In reading the 449 comments of Regenerated-Adult “Does water baptism preceded Regeneration” (Feb 1, 2021) it is very evident that immersion only baptism seems to be the preferred mode of baptism within the WCF community. I have made a bulletized listing. Water baptism by full immersion is fundamental to salvation. Even sprinkling isn't mentioned while immersion IS mentioned. Water baptism by full immersion is a sacrament Even Jesus himself underwent full immersion baptism water baptism by full immersion Of coarse water immersion baptism doesn't save anyone even though the bible says we are to be water immersed in baptism for salvation. having been buried with him in baptism, this is a clear unambiguous reference to water baptism by full immersion. Going under the water equates to burial (Romans 6) One is not buried in any sense when baptised in the Holy Spirit. Of coarse water immersion baptism doesn't save anyone even though the bible says we are to be water immersed in baptism for salvation. Water immersion baptism is a believers first beautiful act of obediance Water immersion baptism is NEVER a work or a ritual, as some call it. I am of the opinion, that immersion only baptism CANNOT be definitively established as the only mode of baptism in the New Testament. I am not saying immersion baptism wasn’t practiced in the New Testament nor am I saying immersion baptisms are invalid. All immersion baptisms are valid. What I am objecting to is the necessity of immersion baptism. So I will every few days or so, examine a particular text of Scripture and post it. And I will gently and honorably defend my thesis of objecting to necessity of immersion baptism. In my next post, I will be defining terms for better clarification where I am coming from.

In reading many posts on WCF, particularly on baptism I have noticed something unique. Hundreds of posts state that baptism is symbolic. Here are a few examples. Baptism is a public symbolic display to everyone and a confession Water baptism is a symbol of repentance. Baptism is a symbol of regeneration The symbolic act of water baptism does not guarantee anything of eternal value. Baptism is SYMBOLIC of for us as believers Baptism is simply a symbolic act of obedience. The Greek word symbolo is not even in the New Testament, but it is in Hellenistic Greek. My question is where does the NT state that baptism is symbolic? Is it a necessary inference? If so, how?