A Parable: Goldilocks and the three modes of Baptism.

[Dead Orthodoxy]

2 minutes ago, Starise said:

No mention of any mode of baptism period. How do you come away with sprinkles?

 

What I am saying is a reasonable person would come to a conclusion that Paul was not immersed.   How do we test a reasonable person standard?   I got this analogy from the internet: 

Supposing I were to place an ad on Craigslist asking for thirty known secularists 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 true of Acts 22:16.   The proper interpretation of this passage is the mode is unknown but it is not immersion.   A possible mode would be pouring as just after Paul was baptized he ate food.  He would have done the ceremony washing which entailed pouring.  This is just a guess though. Baptism is water applied to the human body and how it is to be applied to the human body is up to Christian liberty and freedom.  There is no command in Scripture for any mode over another.

[Dead Orthodoxy]

12 minutes ago, Starise said:

Are we fussing? I am only discussing.

Amen.

[Riverwalker]

1 hour ago, Starise said:

Are we fussing? I am only discussing.

point taken...I was more commenting on the need

[Starise]

6 hours ago, Dead Orthodoxy said:

What I am saying is a reasonable person would come to a conclusion that Paul was not immersed.   How do we test a reasonable person standard?   I got this analogy from the internet: 

Supposing I were to place an ad on Craigslist asking for thirty known secularists 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 true of Acts 22:16.   The proper interpretation of this passage is the mode is unknown but it is not immersion.   A possible mode would be pouring as just after Paul was baptized he ate food.  He would have done the ceremony washing which entailed pouring.  This is just a guess though. Baptism is water applied to the human body and how it is to be applied to the human body is up to Christian liberty and freedom.  There is no command in Scripture for any mode over another.

Where does the bible show different modes? I am of the opinion 'modes' were invented later.

[Dead Orthodoxy]

1 minute ago, Starise said:

Where does the bible show different modes? I am of the opinion 'modes' were invented later.

Baptism has at least three elements to the practice.  1) Application of water to the human body 2) in the true name of God (Triune Formula) and 3) another Christian baptizing you.

Baptism as the application of water to the human body.

Baptism has both a narrow and wide usage concerning the application of water to the human body.   When water is applied to the human body in Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:4, it can be sprinkling or pouring, but certainly not immersion.  (See my comments on previous post on this thread).  This is the wide meaning of Baptizo.

When water is applied to human body and the context defines it as immersion, then it is.  The Ethiopian eunuch would be a good candidate for immersion baptism.  This is the narrow meaning of the baptizo.

The terms immersion, sprinkling or pouring do have historical significance.  However, from the standpoint to strict exegesis in the NT,  the mode of baptizo must be derived from each context passage mentioning the practice.  In other words, baptizo has enough semantic range to incorporate all three modes.

Historically, how this works out is the Didache every much points to the mode of baptism as immersion.  On the other hand, the usage of baptizo in the early church fathers rarely emphasize mode, but clearly places stress on what Baptism accomplishes using the term "wash" as a synonym for baptism. Here we see Luke 11:38, Mark 7:4, Titus 3:16, I Cor 6:11, Acts 22:16, and Eph. 5:26-27 come into play.

Using both examples, history really is a poor predictor whether which mode of baptism the early church used.

 

 

[Dead Orthodoxy]

2 hours ago, Starise said:

Where does the bible show different modes? I am of the opinion 'modes' were invented later.

Perhaps a better way to explain the wide and narrow semantic range is this:

Candidates for the narrow definition of  baptizo:  John's baptisms, Jesus baptism and the Ethiopian Eunuch.

Candidates for the wider definition of baptizo:  Paul's baptism, the 3,000 and the Philippian jailer.

Candidates for neither:  Baptism of the Samaritans (Acts 8), Lydia's baptism, and John's disciples (Acts 19).

 

 

[appy]

It is true that the word baptism is a Greek word used in the NT, nobody disagrees with this. But the practice of immersing oneself, did not begin in the NT, but was already pre-existing. And was a qualification in various rites and rituals of the ancient Jewish life. And absolutely required of those wishing to convert to Judaism in ancient times.

People in ancient times were immersed in a “mikveh”. Jewish law required these to be big enough and contain enough water to cover the entire body, including the head. Total immersion was the requirement and rule for any of the ritual purification rites that were practiced.

Ancient mikveh or mikvoth, can be found in many places throughout Jerusalem and throughout the land of Israel. These were either spring fed, or was a collection of rainwater. Since these were in many places throughout, it makes sense to think that on the day of Pentecost, that the people were baptized in one of these.

It isn't unreasonable to think that since the Jewish people were quite familiar with immersion rites, and the fact that baptism on the day of Pentecost, was a public ceremony just the same as the baptism in the Jordan river when John oversaw the immersions, that people just stepped in clothes and all.

The purpose and meaning was more important than whether they brought a towel or change of clothes with them. Or even how long it took for the number of people to be baptized in one day.

[Dead Orthodoxy]

50 minutes ago, appy said:

But the practice of immersing oneself, did not begin in the NT, but was already pre-existing.

I am a Sola Scriptura person.   The concept of "mikveh" immersion is not found in Scripture.  It is found in history.   I am not bound whatsoever mikveh immersion is necessarily a precursor to Christian baptism.   I am only bound to the text of the NT.

Besides, in mikveh cleansing ritual, a person washing himself.  In Christian baptism, another Christian baptizes you.  

John the Baptist was the forerunner to Christ.  John's baptism is closer to Christian baptism, yet still not the same.  But even John's baptism is not seen as Christian baptism.  John's baptism doesn't contain the triune formula.   This is why John's disciples had to be baptized by Paul's disciples in Acts 19.

[Starise]

20 hours ago, Dead Orthodoxy said:

Are you saying 3,000 people in Jerusalem were "spiritually baptized?"  No water mentioned there!

Are you saying the Philippian jailer was "spiritually" baptized?  No water mentioned there!

Are you saying Lydia was "spiritually" baptized?  No water mentioned there!

Are you saying the disciples of John in Ephesus were "spiritually" baptized.  No water mentioned there!

This is typical of a "credobaptist" interpretation of Scripture.   They follow the three "S" sisters of  Biblical interpretation: Symbolize, Spiritualize and Signifies.  And they love to find these three sisters under every rock of Scripture. 

No. I am not saying any of that. I don't really think the baptism of Paul lacked water, yet it was a spiritual transformation he went through, so there is an argument for a duality of meaning here. I personally believer the scales fell from Paul's eyes and he was compelled to be baptized, so he stood up and went to the closest place that would allow it.

So far as method of interpretation I don't follow any other method than to study, to compare, to look at context.

 

[Starise]

12 hours ago, Dead Orthodoxy said:

Baptism has at least three elements to the practice.  1) Application of water to the human body 2) in the true name of God (Triune Formula) and 3) another Christian baptizing you.

Baptism as the application of water to the human body.

Baptism has both a narrow and wide usage concerning the application of water to the human body.   When water is applied to the human body in Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:4, it can be sprinkling or pouring, but certainly not immersion.  (See my comments on previous post on this thread).  This is the wide meaning of Baptizo.

When water is applied to human body and the context defines it as immersion, then it is.  The Ethiopian eunuch would be a good candidate for immersion baptism.  This is the narrow meaning of the baptizo.

The terms immersion, sprinkling or pouring do have historical significance.  However, from the standpoint to strict exegesis in the NT,  the mode of baptizo must be derived from each context passage mentioning the practice.  In other words, baptizo has enough semantic range to incorporate all three modes.

Historically, how this works out is the Didache every much points to the mode of baptism as immersion.  On the other hand, the usage of baptizo in the early church fathers rarely emphasize mode, but clearly places stress on what Baptism accomplishes using the term "wash" as a synonym for baptism. Here we see Luke 11:38, Mark 7:4, Titus 3:16, I Cor 6:11, Acts 22:16, and Eph. 5:26-27 come into play.

Using both examples, history really is a poor predictor whether which mode of baptism the early church used.

 

 

I don't believe the early church emphasized mode because there was no question in the matter. Same as washing the car to day means to wash the car. No one question what happens or how it happens.

We don't read that Paul had the customized 50% sprinkle method. There was no need to attach anything to it other than what it was.

Only later in history do we read about churches doing this. It should be noted that many of these churches are apostate churches. The idea of sprinkling infants and calling it baptism certainly did not come from the bible. 

The only real allowance I can see for this would be if a person is infirm or in poor health to such an extent that baptism done the typical most accepted way can't be done. In that case God sees the heart. Church buildings worth 3 million dollars can afford to put in a baptismal tank.

 

Edited January 27, 2022 by Starise