A Parable: Goldilocks and the three modes of Baptism.

[appy]

On 1/25/2022 at 2:07 PM, 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.

NOPE. Not a lot of water.

 

 

You said in the above post, that it wasn't possible for people to be baptized.  I didn't say anything in my post about OT scripture.  What I pointed out was the fact that there water collected into those mikveh's. So there was indeed water available and enough of it to baptize.

1 hour ago, Dead Orthodoxy said:

I am not bound whatsoever mikveh immersion is necessarily a precursor to Christian baptism.  

I did not say you were.

According to Jewish web sites ...In temple times, the priests as well as each Jew who wished to enter the temple had to first immerse in a mikvah.  And was used for purification purposes.  Not because one needed to clean dirt off the skin.

The people in those days, certainly understood the concept of being unclean, just as the gentiles were considered unclean where sin is concerned. We are not talking about dirt on the skin.

The mode of baptism, is not worth dividing people over.  The principle of john baptizing and its meaning, had not really changed.  Because as each person was immersed, they recognized that the water was a symbol of being cleansed from the old life of sin.  And coming back up to a new life. They were identifying themselves with God

 

[Starise]

10 hours ago, Dead Orthodoxy said:

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).

 

 

Thanks for your answer. This shows me your line of thinking. I 'can't' in all good conscience follow that line of thinking.

It isn't that I am unwilling to. I simply can't because then I would have to assume things that might not be correct, so instead I lean in the common accepted precedent as shown clearly in scripture.

In order to believe this we have to ASSUME there was absolutely no way 3000 people could have been immersed. My answer: You can dip a lot of people in a tank of water and I mean a LOT of people. Who knows , maybe they had 5 or 6 tanks all going at once. How can anyone say beyond any doubt this isn't what happened? Mountains are known to have  streams. You say it was on a mountain. Have you excluded any possibility of a stream near by?

To a man living in 1542 it would seem difficult to believe we could fly a whole army over the ocean complete with tanks and even machines that fly and attack from the air.

To some it might seem difficult to believe 3000 men can be immersed. It isn't difficult for me to believe God can arrange for anything. If anything, breaking with a common precedent seems more of an oddity to me.

[appy]

The photo below is from wikipedia, of an ancient mikveh.  The requirement was well water, spring fed, or rain water.  They would not have constructed these, if there was no way to fill them with water.

 

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mikva.jpg#/media/File:Mikva.jpg

 

[Dead Orthodoxy]

2 hours ago, Starise said:

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.

Ah, still vying for another location for Paul to be baptized.   I believe Acts 9 taken as a whole, gives ample evidence that Paul was indeed baptized in the house of Judas.

Let me make my case
The key pieces of evidence.  1) Paul’s encounter with the risen Christ  2) Being struck blind 3) not eating or drinking for three days, 4) Ananias command to stand 5) eating  6) It took some time for Paul to recover from this event.

We notice the text doesn’t say that he fasted.  Fasting is a separate Greek word and implies Paul voluntary didn’t eat or drink.  The text says he didn’t eat or drink for three days.  So why didn’t he eat or drink for three days?  Perhaps he had no desire to eat or drink or maybe he couldn’t eat or drink.  What would cause this?

ACUTE TRAUMA

Paul just survived an encounter with the glorified rise Lord and was struck blind.   The full weight of Jesus’ judgment is upon him.  The law railed at him harshly….Paul was persecuting Jesus Himself.  This is something you don’t recover from in a heart beat.  This is what induces the trauma.

To understand this unique and particular type of trauma, we go other passages of Scripture that describe what happens when sinful man encounters a holy and righteous God.   And then see if we can make application to Paul’s situation.

Is. 6 is a key text.  Isaiah encounters God who is Holy and Righteous.  What does he say?  “Woe is me, I am undone.”  Isaiah pronounces a malediction on himself, and has a feeling of existential disintegration.  Then a burning coal is placed on his lips. “and your guilt is taken away and atonement is made for your sin.”  No person can endure an encounter with God being sinful.  It is a terrifying experience.  Isaiah says "Send me" only after he receives the forgiveness of sins.

We also see this same terror and dread with Jesus and the disciples.  Normally, Jesus divinity is hidden behind his humanity, but what happens with Jesus’ divinity is made manifest?

Jesus walking on the water. (Mt 14)   When the disciples saw Him walking on the sea, they were terrified, and said, “It is a ghost!” And they cried out in fear.   But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, “Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid.”

Jesus calming the storm (Mark 4) 39 And He got up and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, “Hush, be still.” And the wind died down and it became perfectly calm. 40 And He said to them, “Why are you afraid? Do you still have no faith?” 41 They became very much afraid and said to one another, “Who, then, is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?”  The Greek in vs. 41 is ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον or fearing with fear,  or fear upon fear or even fear multiplied by fear.   This is terror, dread, trauma inducing stuff.

We also see terror and fear with the angelic encounters in the NT.
The women at the tomb…5 And the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified.

Angelic encounter of Zechariah  12 Zechariah was troubled when he saw the angel, and fear gripped him. 13 But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zechariah,
And Mary…..And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.

The resurrection appearance in Luke… 36 Now while they were telling these things, Jesus Himself suddenly stood in their midst and *said to them, “Peace be to you.” 37 But they were startled and frightened, and thought that they were looking at a spirit. 38 And He said to them, “Why are you frightened,

Summary:  Within these supernatural encounters, two key points.  Humans are terrified but can endure such an encounter with the words “Do not fear” or “Peace be with you.”

BUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE IS NO PRONOUNCEMENT OF “Do not fear” or “peace be with you.”  We have two examples.   

The guards at the tomb…. And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it. And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. The guards shook from fear of him and became like dead men.
It is interesting to note why the angel sat on the rock.  As if saying “I ain’t leaving till you do.”  So the guards left just before the women came to the tomb.

THE EXAMPLE OF PAUL  Paul suffers from a double whammie.  No pronouncement of “Do not fear” and he is struck blind. He doesn’t have God’s help to overcome this terrifying event.  We have no human category of this kind of acute trauma.  It is only revealed in Scripture what a supernatural encounter without the help of God can do to a person.

This is probably why Paul couldn’t eat or drink for three days. Acute trauma beyond human imagination.  This is what it took to turn a person like Paul around.  Was Paul near death? I don’t know.  If Ananias didn’t come to Paul, would Paul’s death occur?  Most likely.  No person can endure what Paul endured without the help of God.  Paul encounter was with Jesus not with angels.  Ananias pronouncement “Receive the Holy Spirit” probably functions like “Peace be with you” which begins the healing process.  

Ananias tells Paul to stand up.   This would be natural.  Paul for three days was probably just lying on a bed (fetal position?) with a numbed mind.  Couldn’t do much more.

It is interesting to note that it takes some time for Paul to recover from this horrid event.   The text doesn’t specify the length of time at Judas’ house, but when Luke mentions this “recovery time” emphasis is place on how bad Paul was physically and psychologically.  Yes all these events occurred in the house of Judas including his baptism.  Luke records he ate food after his baptism.  It is textually unsupported, he walked to another location for an immersion baptism before or without eating food in his physical condition.

So why do credobaptists insist on immersion baptism in every description of baptism in the NT?  That is the subject of my next post.

 

[Dead Orthodoxy]

2 hours ago, Starise said:

Mountains are known to have  streams. You say it was on a mountain. Have you excluded any possibility of a stream near by?

 

The typography of Jerusalem has been known for some 5,000 years and no known streams nearly.  Jerusalem is located on a mountain. The Gihon Spring was the main source of water for the city of Jerusalem 

[Starise]

49 minutes ago, Dead Orthodoxy said:

Ah, still vying for another location for Paul to be baptized.   I believe Acts 9 taken as a whole, gives ample evidence that Paul was indeed baptized in the house of Judas.

 

Not really. If you can simply show me a quote from the scriptures where men were sprinkled as a form of baptism I would consider it. I don't find it anywhere.

49 minutes ago, Dead Orthodoxy said:

Summary:  Within these supernatural encounters, two key points.  Humans are terrified but can endure such an encounter with the words “Do not fear” or “Peace be with you.”

I read all of the prior references and I agree with the summation of them as you state above. No question Paul had been through the wringer and was undoubtedly pushed to his limits during this transformation. It seems you are making the connection here that Paul HAD to have only been in the home of Judas. Fair enough. I still think he could have been mobile withing a closer proximity. It seems highly likely he was in the home, but we can't be 100% sure of it. I predict the next thing you will mention is that Jewish households didn't have any means of baptizing a man by immersion 

So it comes down to A. Whether Paul was in a home with no or little water or B. He walked a short distance to some sort of a public pool or water area. Possibly man made like the one @appy showed us. It would make sense that any city had a place to secure water and maybe even a public wash area. The Romans had them, why not the Jews?

I feel you are attempting to force Paul to be in a home with a small water basin. If we conclude he was baptized according to precedent, then he was baptized by immersion. Maybe Jewish households had a place to store larger amounts of water? 

If a new precedent was set, why aren't we told of it in the Bible? True, most modern churches have changed the Lord's table from a meal to a few crumbs of cracker and a small sip of juice from something that looks like a shot glass. Did Jesus indicate we were to break bread in remembrance or remember while breaking bread? We substituted a cracker so small it wouldn't fill an ant. How about the cup? Look at the churches who share one cup. This sort of stopped after COVID. That one never appealed to me. Yum Yum. Let me sip that cup 50 other people just sipped from.

I think the same thing has probably occurred with baptism, we have adapted it to fit us instead of following it by the letter.

In some places of the world they still have an actual meal around remembrance. A pastor or elder helps to baptize men and women by actually placing them under the water, the way John the Baptist did it.

Yes it's the heart that really matters. The obedient heart is the growing heart. 

 

Edited January 27, 2022 by Starise

[Dead Orthodoxy]

1 minute ago, Starise said:

Not really. If you can simply show me a quote from the scriptures where men were sprinkled as a form of baptism I would consider it. I don't find it anywhere.

Baptism is water applied to the human body, in the Triune name, and another Christian baptizing you.

We look to the NT and specifically the word baptizo to see how the word is used when applying water to the human body.

Credobaptists only see immersion.

Paedobaptists use Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:4 where baptizo are examples where water is applied to the human body and it ain't immersion.   This is the common NT usage of the word.

Bapatizo has enough bandwith to its meaning to incorporate both immersion and non immersion baptisms.   Simple.

WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON HERE?  Confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias is the tendency to interpret Scripture which conforms to a persons prior beliefs while rejecting or ignoring any conflicting data.  It is the tendency of the human brain to filter out and ignore evidence while at the time focusing focus on the things that confirm our notions.

 

So if a Baptist were taught from cradle to grave before opening up the Bible, all baptisms in the NT are only by immersion…then they are!  And no investigation is necessary.   But how do you know all baptisms are immersion unless you study each passage that applies baptism to the person?

 

The problem I have with Credobaptists is they start with a iron clad, concrete conclusion about the mode of baptism  without examining the particulars. 

What are the particulars---a strong understanding of Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:4.  Water applied to the human body and NOT immersion.  This then allows for sprinkling or pouring.  The sematic range of baptizo is not narrow as the credos hold.  Again simple.

I hate to say it....but to a certain extend interpretation of Scripture is according to our tradition.

 

 

[Dead Orthodoxy]

14 minutes ago, Dead Orthodoxy said:

Not really. If you can simply show me a quote from the scriptures where men were sprinkled as a form of baptism I would consider it. I don't find it anywhere.

Supposing I were to say "I only drive Fords."   Then I start talking about driving an F 250.  Then someone would say....that is not correct you stated only drive Fords and now you are stating you drive an F 250.

We would think that person would not be the bright bulb on the tree.

Why?  The semantic range of the word "ford" includes the F 250 truck.

In the same way, baptizo has a wide enough sematic range to incorporate sprinkling and pouring.  So you don't have to have a specific passage the expressly states the word sprinkling as baptism.  Baptizo allows for sprinkling.

[Dead Orthodoxy]

55 minutes ago, Starise said:

 

I feel you are attempting to force Paul to be in a home with a small water basin. If we conclude he was baptized according to precedent, then he was baptized by immersion. Maybe Jewish households had a place to store larger amounts of water? 

If a new precedent was set, why aren't we told of it in the Bible?

 

Question:  On what basis is immersion baptism the "precedent?"  This seems to be your default argument. 

It seems to me you are establishing the mode of baptism according to the Hellenistic definition of baptism rather than how the NT uses it.  The original Hellenistic meaning is any act of immersion into a substance. This is quite clear.

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.  In New Testament times, “baptize” didn’t have to have a special religious meaning. It typically meant “to wash with water,” whether by immersing, pouring, or sprinkling.  (Luke 11:38 & Mark 7:4).

Credos have a hard time understanding this.   They are stuck with the Hellenistic meaning of the word.   The reality is many Hellenistic words have a change of meaning in the NT.

Common Hellenistic words such as flesh, heaven, God, Agape 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.  You never see Greek word for God in the NT means Apollo or Zeus.

But for some reason the credos believe baptizo can't take on new meaning even if the NT says it does (Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:4). And this is the only Hellenistic word I believe credos do this with.

One of my rules for interpreting Scripture is the etymology of a word never trumps the contextual usage of a word.  This would be committing the Fallacy of the Root.  This and for the reason above, Paul truly was baptized in Judas house.  Immersion baptism is NOT THE PRECEDENT. It never was until the Radical Reformation.

 

 

 

[Starise]

1 hour ago, Dead Orthodoxy said:

Baptism is water applied to the human body, in the Triune name, and another Christian baptizing you.

We look to the NT and specifically the word baptizo to see how the word is used when applying water to the human body.

Credobaptists only see immersion.

Paedobaptists use Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:4 where baptizo are examples where water is applied to the human body and it ain't immersion.   This is the common NT usage of the word.

Bapatizo has enough bandwith to its meaning to incorporate both immersion and non immersion baptisms.   Simple.

WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON HERE?  Confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias is the tendency to interpret Scripture which conforms to a persons prior beliefs while rejecting or ignoring any conflicting data.  It is the tendency of the human brain to filter out and ignore evidence while at the time focusing focus on the things that confirm our notions.

 

 

 

So if a Baptist were taught from cradle to grave before opening up the Bible, all baptisms in the NT are only by immersion…then they are!  And no investigation is necessary.   But how do you know all baptisms are immersion unless you study each passage that applies baptism to the person?

 

 

 

The problem I have with Credobaptists is they start with a iron clad, concrete conclusion about the mode of baptism  without examining the particulars. 

What are the particulars---a strong understanding of Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:4.  Water applied to the human body and NOT immersion.  This then allows for sprinkling or pouring.  The sematic range of baptizo is not narrow as the credos hold.  Again simple.

I hate to say it....but to a certain extend interpretation of Scripture is according to our tradition.

 

 

 

The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon

 

Strong's Number: 907 Browse Lexicon Original Word Word Origin baptizo from a derivative of (911) Transliterated Word TDNT Entry Baptizo 1:529,92 Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech bap-tid'-zo    Definition to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe to overwhelm Not to be confused with 911, bapto. The clearest example that showsthe meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physicianNicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making picklesand is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that inorder to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped'(bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizo) in thevinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in asolution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act ofbaptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change. When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to ourunion and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g.Mark 16:16. 'He that believes and is baptised shall be saved'.Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. Theremust be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to thepickle! Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989.