Can immersion only baptism survive close scrutiny?

[Peterlag]

9 hours ago, Dead Orthodoxy said:

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.

 

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.

*** Peter is talking about Noah and the ark and not water baptism.

2.  The book of Acts gives us examples of how baptism is to be administered.

*** Chapter and verse please?

The Epistles teach what baptism does and how it is to be applied in Christian life and living.

*** Chapter and verse please?

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.

*** Are you saying water baptism is not mentioned in the Epistles so you have to look else where for it?

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

*** Does it bother you that I am an expert on the New Testament and debate and discus Scripture with the group here? Or are you interested in only your thoughts to be heard?

[Dead Orthodoxy]

9 hours ago, Waggles said:

Baptism was considered so significant that first century Christians were even being baptised on behalf of the dead ... 

1Cor 15:28  When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things in subjection under him, that God may be all in all. 
29  Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf? 

The Corinthians were certainly zealous about the significance of water baptism. 

"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.