Can immersion only baptism survive close scrutiny?

[Waggles]

Roman Empire baptism pool - 

[Waggles]

Another Roman Empire baptism pool -

[Peterlag]

3 hours ago, Waggles said:

The two commentaries you @Peterlag posted above are still nonsense. Opinion not scripture.

It is a fundamental requirement of the NT that disciples were baptised by full immersion water baptism AND were also expected to be baptised in the Holy Spirit with the Bible evidence of praying in tongues.

Jesus commanded this. Acts demonstrates this. The epistles teach and uphold this. 

And yet there is not one mention of this from any body teaching about water or even a mention of water being a doctrine in the Epistles. We only have Philip, and doing it once to someone who asked for it. Yes, from the habit of tradition, and only for a short period of time, a small handful of people were baptized with water into the New Testament, but never again afterwards.

[Waggles]

47 minutes ago, Peterlag said:

And yet there is not one mention of this from any body teaching about water or even a mention of water being a doctrine in the Epistles. We only have Philip, and doing it once to someone who asked for it. Yes, from the habit of tradition, and only for a short period of time, a small handful of people were baptized with water into the New Testament, but never again afterwards.

You are making this up as you go. What you teach is unscriptural and false doctrine.

[Dead Orthodoxy]

4 hours ago, Waggles said:

The two commentaries you @Peterlag posted above are still nonsense. Opinion not scripture.

It is a fundamental requirement of the NT that disciples were baptised by full immersion water baptism AND were also expected to be baptised in the Holy Spirit with the Bible evidence of praying in tongues.

Jesus commanded this. Acts demonstrates this. The epistles teach and uphold this. 

 

7 hours ago, Peterlag said:

And here's more...

There are some people who say that this phrase means a person has to be water baptized to be saved, but that cannot be the case. When Jesus spoke to Nicodemus, no one had to be baptized to be saved. There in Judea John and Jesus both baptized as a sign of recommitment to obedience to the Law, and there is evidence that proselytes to Judaism were water baptized, but in no case did the Word of God, or John or Jesus, say it was a requirement for salvation.

It is clear that baptism was not a requirement for salvation in the Old Testament, so if baptism became a requirement for salvation during the ministry of John or Jesus, the Bible should tell us that, and it never does Furthermore, water baptism was not universally practiced by Jesus or his disciples. When he sent out the 12 and when he sent out the 72, in neither case did he tell any of his disciples to baptize those who listened and believed the message. This fact is made even clearer when the rich man came to Jesus and specifically asked how to be saved. Jesus answered: “If you want to enter life, obey the commandments.” Jesus did not mention baptism because it was not essential in order to be saved.

Jesus just said the phrase “born of water” when he was speaking to Nicodemus, but he never explained it, so it must have referred to something that Nicodemus could understand without any explanation. Based on that, and the context that “that which is born of flesh [with water] is flesh,” the best conclusion is that “born of water” is literal, and should be understood literally. In the context in which Jesus was speaking, before the Church Age, in order to be saved a person had to be 1) born of water (when he is born from his mother) and 2) born of the spirit (when the earth gives birth to him.

 

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. 

[Waggles]

Sorry  

Edited March 28, 2021 by Waggles

[leah777]

4 hours ago, Waggles said:

were also expected to be baptised in the Holy Spirit with the Bible evidence of praying in tongues.

This is not right. Praying in tongues is not necessary to be evidence of Holy Spirit baptism. It is just one of the Gifts. Many good Born Again Christians do not speak in tongues. Read scripture about how some have one Gift, some have another.

Edited March 28, 2021 by leah777
spelling

[Dennis1209]

On 3/25/2021 at 1:18 PM, Dead Orthodoxy said:

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.

 

 

 

 

•  

Acts 2:38 (KJV) 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.

The chronology seems to be get saved, repent then be baptized. Being baptized publically represents our identification with our Savior; His death, burial and resurrection; our regeneration in Christ. Complete immersion is our biblical example; they're no examples of sprinkling or infant baptism. 

I won't bore with the details but, the RCC came up with the non-biblical tradition of sprinkling, last rites, etc. 

[Dead Orthodoxy]

24 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

Acts 2:38 (KJV) 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.

The chronology seems to be get saved, repent then be baptized. Being baptized publically represents our identification with our Savior; His death, burial and resurrection; our regeneration in Christ. Complete immersion is our biblical example; they're no examples of sprinkling or infant baptism. 

I won't bore with the details but, the RCC came up with the non-biblical tradition of sprinkling, last rites, etc. 

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.

[Waggles]

1 hour ago, Dead Orthodoxy said:

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).

I do not know about that. That is not how I read the description of Paul being baptised.  - Acts 22:16 

(DRB)  And now why tarriest thou? Rise up and be baptized and wash away thy sins, invoking his name.
(ESV)  And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’
(KJV)  And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
(LITV)  And now what do you intend? Rising up, be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
(NENT)  And what shall thou do now? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name.
(RV)  And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on his name.
(WEB)  Now why do you wait? Arise, be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.’
(Weymouth)  And now why delay? Rise, get yourself baptized, and wash off your sins, calling upon His name.'
(YLT)  and now, why tarriest thou? having risen, baptize thyself, and wash away thy sins, calling upon the name of the Lord.

My understanding is that Paul (who was blinded and fasting for three days prior) simply got up from his bed or his chair to get baptised in water where this could be done. 

Acts 9:17  So Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 
9:18  And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized; 

(Weymouth)  Instantly there dropped from his eyes what seemed to be scales, and he could see once more. Upon this he rose and received baptism;
(YLT)  And immediately there fell from his eyes as it were scales, he saw again also presently, and having risen, was baptized,

Reading theses verses again there is no obvious statement that Paul was baptised standing up - he merely got up from where he was lower down (bed?) and afterwards he got baptised in water. 

Throughout the Roman and Byzantine Empires there are numerous pools often with steps going down from either side, indicative of full immersion baptisms. The other notable archaeological style are oversized bath tubs, such as the one in Dura-Europos, Syria, 2nd century. 

Edited March 29, 2021 by Waggles