A Parable: Goldilocks and the three modes of Baptism.

[Ray12614]

14 hours ago, Dead Orthodoxy said:

All believers in the OT were saved without baptism.  How were they saved?  By faith (Hebrews 11).  They trusted their sins were forgiven through the sacrificial system and the coming Messiah as the whole of the OT promulgates.

It is presumed the thief was Jewish as he uses "kingdom" in his petition to Jesus.  Was it possible the thief heard Jesus preach about the "kingdom" before is demise on the cross.  One does not know.

Scripture reveals at least two individuals were converted when Jesus was on the cross.  The thief and the Roman Centurion.  And both were converted the exact same way...through the preaching of the Word. As the Scriptures, say "Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God."   What is interesting, the preaching of or about Jesus comes from two separate sources:  Jesus' own words as he does quote a psalm and secondly, from the Scribes and the Sadducee's in their accusations against Jesus.

The Roman Centurion said after Christ's death "Surely, this man was the Son of God." So how does the Centurion who was a Gentile come to the conclusion he is the Son of God. The text doesn't state Jesus ever said these words, but it does state that the Sadducee's made these statements as the Centurion witnessed what was said. 

After six hours on the cross, the Centurion hears accusation after accusation by the Scribes and the Sadducees.  It is interesting to note, these accusations contain statements of Jesus true teaching prior to being put on the cross.  The centurion believes he Jesus is the Son of God because Matthew records twice his accusers said he was.

So faith was worked into the Centurion in the oddest of all ways....through the accusations of Christ's accusers.  He doesn't believe the Scribes and the Sadducees accusations but he believes the content of the accusations as true.

Faith does come by hearing and hearing by the Word of God.

 

Thanks for replying. I think we got a little off subject, but, thankfully the moderators left us alone.

And thank you for taking time to reply, I look forward to meeting you in the presence of Jesus our King!

Grace and Peace . . . Ray . . . 

 

[Michael37]

5 hours ago, Ray12614 said:

Thanks for replying. I think we got a little off subject, but, thankfully the moderators left us alone.

[Dennis1209]

Different religions have various interpretations and baptism practices. The Catholics for instance, believe and practice infant baptism.

I was baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. All involved with Christ's birth, death, burial, and resurrection. 

Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Baptism has nothing to do with getting saved, but it is very important. Our Biblical example is, that was the first thing done after a person came to belief, and accepted the Gospel (i.e. Phillip and the Eunuch). 

Baptism is a public declaration of one's conversion, the old man is put away, and a new man is reborn. We shamelessly and publicly announce, we are now Christ followers.

The biblical example set forth in the Bible, is immersion in water, and plenty of it. There are no examples of sprinkling or pouring. The idea of sprinkling and pouring is not biblical, but man made. 

[Dead Orthodoxy]

9 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

The biblical example set forth in the Bible, is immersion in water, and plenty of it. There are no examples of sprinkling or pouring. The idea of sprinkling and pouring is not biblical, but man made. 

Not so. There are (1) four passages in the NT (2) in which the word Baptizó is used, (3) water is applied to the human body, (4) and contextually it CANNOT MEAN IMMERSION.

Before the NT was written, the Jews first took the Hellenistic word “baptism” out of its original Greek context and used it for the practice of general ceremonial washing. This is the culture Jesus was born into. It typically meant “to wash with water,” whether by immersing, pouring, or sprinkling.

We see the general ritual washing of hands with the word Baptizó and without full body immersion in Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:2-4.

In Luke 11:38, the Pharisee was astonished that Jesus didn’t ceremonially baptize (Baptizó) his hands before dinner. Jesus didn’t fully immerse himself in water, but rather the usage of water was just enough to fulfill the Jewish custom whether sprinkling or pouring.

In Mark 7, the disciples were criticized for not ceremonially baptizing their hands after buying food at the market.

In both Luke and Mark, the word for “washing” of the hands is Baptizó . Jesus and the disciples were not criticized for not immersing themselves fully in water as original Hellenistic word would suggest, rather they were criticized for not washing their hands as this new meaning of the word “baptism” allows. 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.

This is change of meaning of the word Baptizó is demonstrated when Ananias baptized Paul (Acts 9:18). Paul is blind, in the house of Judas, and he didn't eat for three days and "18 And immediately something like fish scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight, and he stood up and was baptized; 19 and he took food and was strengthened.

Just how is it possible for Paul to be immersed standing up inside of a house?

The "not eating" before his baptism and "eating of food" after his baptism, are the contextual bookends that this all happened in the same location and in short time.

Ananias' command is not a call for Paul to get-up-and-go-someplace to be baptized, rather Ananias is ordering a more suitable posture for baptism than reclining in the room where they met.

Furthermore, as Paul retells this story in Acts 22:16 he uses the same language. "STAND UP and be baptized, and wash away your sins by calling on His name." Same Greek for for "stand up" in both passages.

So we have two passages of Scripture, talking about the same event, both mentioning the administration of baptism, AND CONTEXTUALLY IT IS NOT IMMERSION BAPTISM. This is the plain reading of the text.

No "plenty of water" as you state in Paul's baptism.

[Dennis1209]

37 minutes ago, Dead Orthodoxy said:

Not so. There are (1) four passages in the NT (2) in which the word Baptizó is used, (3) water is applied to the human body, (4) and contextually it CANNOT MEAN IMMERSION.

Before the NT was written, the Jews first took the Hellenistic word “baptism” out of its original Greek context and used it for the practice of general ceremonial washing. This is the culture Jesus was born into. It typically meant “to wash with water,” whether by immersing, pouring, or sprinkling.

We see the general ritual washing of hands with the word Baptizó and without full body immersion in Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:2-4.

In Luke 11:38, the Pharisee was astonished that Jesus didn’t ceremonially baptize (Baptizó) his hands before dinner. Jesus didn’t fully immerse himself in water, but rather the usage of water was just enough to fulfill the Jewish custom whether sprinkling or pouring.

In Mark 7, the disciples were criticized for not ceremonially baptizing their hands after buying food at the market.

In both Luke and Mark, the word for “washing” of the hands is Baptizó . Jesus and the disciples were not criticized for not immersing themselves fully in water as original Hellenistic word would suggest, rather they were criticized for not washing their hands as this new meaning of the word “baptism” allows. 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.

This is change of meaning of the word Baptizó is demonstrated when Ananias baptized Paul (Acts 9:18). Paul is blind, in the house of Judas, and he didn't eat for three days and "18 And immediately something like fish scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight, and he stood up and was baptized; 19 and he took food and was strengthened.

Just how is it possible for Paul to be immersed standing up inside of a house?

The "not eating" before his baptism and "eating of food" after his baptism, are the contextual bookends that this all happened in the same location and in short time.

Ananias' command is not a call for Paul to get-up-and-go-someplace to be baptized, rather Ananias is ordering a more suitable posture for baptism than reclining in the room where they met.

Furthermore, as Paul retells this story in Acts 22:16 he uses the same language. "STAND UP and be baptized, and wash away your sins by calling on His name." Same Greek for for "stand up" in both passages.

So we have two passages of Scripture, talking about the same event, both mentioning the administration of baptism, AND CONTEXTUALLY IT IS NOT IMMERSION BAPTISM. This is the plain reading of the text.

No "plenty of water" as you state in Paul's baptism.

Technically I might concur:

BAPTISM, CHRISTIAN—an ordinance immediately instituted by Christ (Matt. 28:19, 20), and designed to be observed in the church, like that of the Supper, “till he come.” The words “baptize” and “baptism” are simply Greek words transferred into English. This was necessarily done by the translators of the Scriptures, for no literal translation could properly express all that is implied in them.
The mode of baptism can in no way be determined from the Greek word rendered “baptize.” Baptists say that it means “to dip,” and nothing else. That is an incorrect view of the meaning of the word. It means both (1) to dip a thing into an element or liquid, and (2) to put an element or liquid over or on it. Nothing therefore as to the mode of baptism can be concluded from the mere word used.

M. G. Easton, in Illustrated Bible Dictionary and Treasury of Biblical History, Biography, Geography, Doctrine, and Literature (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1893), 78–79.

However, in each example in the Bible, baptism was not done out of a bucket or cistern. They were standing in a river or place with a lot of water (cf. Matt. 28:19; Acts 8:39: Mark 1:5; Matt. 3:16).

Does it make any sense to be standing in a large pool of water, and get sprinkled or poured on? A lot easier to get a bucket of water from somewhere, rather than to travel to a large body of water. 

No, I'll stick to my guns  Or in this case, immersion. 

[Dead Orthodoxy]

5 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

They were standing in a river or place with a lot of water (cf. Matt. 28:19; Acts 8:39: Mark 1:5; Matt. 3:16).

 

8 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

 

Oh really...a lot of water?

What about 3,000 baptized on the day of Pentecost?  Jerusalem was located on a mountain top! No flowing rivers there.

• Did 3,000 people bring a towel and an extra change of clothes?
• Did 3,000 people walk around dripping wet?
• Did 3,000 people strip down to their Palestinian G –Strings?
• Did 3,000 people go skinny dipping?

And would you like to be the 2,989 person baptized? My goodness toilet paper hadn’t been invented yet…and you want me to be baptized in that bio- hazardous soup?

It is hilarious reading about how Baptists try to justify three thousand people were immersed during a festival time in Jerusalem, with a swollen population, and limited water supply and water being precious commodity.

You also conveniently neglected to list or to offer any justification how the Philippian jailor could be immersed in jail complex. Did the jailor and Silas get lowered down a well to be baptized? Did the jailor and Paul temporarily escape jail to take a night hike to a river? I kid you not…these are some of the explanations Baptists have come up with that I have read. Unbelievable.

NOPE. Not a lot of water.

 

 

[grahampaul]

On 1/22/2022 at 2:09 AM, Dead Orthodoxy said:

The Papa Bear of Immersion: The Papa bear will state that immersion baptism only specifically symbolizes Christ’s death and resurrection (Ro 6 and Col 2). The Papa bear states sprinkling and pouring doesn’t depict this symbolism. Therefore, only immersion is a valid mode of Baptism.

The Mama Bear of Pouring: The Mama bear doesn’t believe immersion specifically symbolizes Christ’s death and resurrection. The Mama bear believes pouring symbolizes the Holy Spirit being "poured out" to the Gentile world (Acts 2) plus Christ’s blood "poured out" for many (Mt 26) through His death on the cross. The Mama Bear states immersion and sprinkling doesn’t depict this symbolism of the Holy Sprit and Christ’s blood. Therefore, only pouring is a valid mode of baptism.

The Baby Bear of Sprinkling: The Baby bear doesn’t believe baptism is symbolic of Christ’s death or resurrection nor the giving of the Holy Spirit. The Baby bear believes sprinkling symbolizes Jesus of the New Coventant “sprinkled in his blood” (Heb 12); it symbolizes without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins (Heb. 9); it symbolizes Jesus being whipped with those droplets of blood signifying “by his wounds we are healed” (I Peter 2). The Baby bear states immersion and pouring doesn’t depict this symbolism. Therefore, only sprinkling is the only valid mode of baptism.

 

 

i suppose that leaves me goldie locks unbaptized.
Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. acts 11v16.

I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius;
1 corr 1v14/

personally i have never been in a position to be baptized ,it hasnt bothered or hindered me to my knowledge.

[Dead Orthodoxy]

11 minutes ago, grahampaul said:

personally i have never been in a position to be baptized ,it hasnt bothered or hindered me to my knowledge.

You might want to talk to your pastor about this statement.

[grahampaul]

17 minutes ago, Dead Orthodoxy said:

You might want to talk to your pastor about this statement.

My pastor? i belong to no organised religion. i do belong to the church/famiely of God.

And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers
eph 4v11.

[Starise]

16 hours ago, Dead Orthodoxy said:

 

Oh really...a lot of water?

What about 3,000 baptized on the day of Pentecost?  Jerusalem was located on a mountain top! No flowing rivers there.

• Did 3,000 people bring a towel and an extra change of clothes?
• Did 3,000 people walk around dripping wet?
• Did 3,000 people strip down to their Palestinian G –Strings?
• Did 3,000 people go skinny dipping?

And would you like to be the 2,989 person baptized? My goodness toilet paper hadn’t been invented yet…and you want me to be baptized in that bio- hazardous soup?

It is hilarious reading about how Baptists try to justify three thousand people were immersed during a festival time in Jerusalem, with a swollen population, and limited water supply and water being precious commodity.

You also conveniently neglected to list or to offer any justification how the Philippian jailor could be immersed in jail complex. Did the jailor and Silas get lowered down a well to be baptized? Did the jailor and Paul temporarily escape jail to take a night hike to a river? I kid you not…these are some of the explanations Baptists have come up with that I have read. Unbelievable.

NOPE. Not a lot of water.

 

 

It isn't difficult for me to imagine 3000 people being baptized IN water. One does not come up out of a bowl of water. Every argument you have given here is baseless if your intent was to say that these baptisms could not have been by immersion.

These are observations based on what you assume.No proof whatsoever.