SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : To immerse...or not to immerse?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( 1 | 2 Next Page )
PosterThread
CJaKfOrEsT
Member



Joined: 2004/3/31
Posts: 901
Melbourne, Australia

 To immerse...or not to immerse?

I'm reminded of the issue that arose with Finney, while openning this thread, between the Baptists and the Prespytarians, where he preached each arguement equally, leaving them all to accept that it really is a non-issue. But I notice that his points weren't recorded.
I personally believe in immersion (based purely on the word BAPTIZO, meaning to immerse). I just want to hear the other side of the story, so I can understand the issue more clearly (Yeah, I know, not like me is it Greg :-P).


_________________
Aaron Ireland

 2004/5/6 8:12Profile
jeremyhulsey
Member



Joined: 2003/4/18
Posts: 777


 Re: To immerse...or not to immerse?

There is a book called the didache (I hope I spelled that right). It is one of the earliest instruction books as far as church liturgy is concerned that we know of. It's sort of like a minister's instruction manual today. In it it describes how baptism ideally should take place.

Baptism should, according to it, take place in "living water" that is a running stream or river. If that's not available, then a lake or pond or later a baptismal would work. If a person was bed ridden and could not make it to such a place and wanted to be baptized, then the minister could poor water over the person's head three times and that was acceptable.

Baptism was an entrance into the community of faith; a public profession of faith in Christ. The act of baptism is not as important as the profession is.

In Christ,
Jeremy Hulsey


_________________
Jeremy Hulsey

 2004/5/6 12:17Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re: The Didache

Hi Jeremy
I have The Didache here to hand so I thought I would quote your section in full...

Now concerning baptism, baptize as follows: after you have reviewed all these things, baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" in running water. But if you have no running water, then baptize in some other water; and if you are you not able to baptize in cold water, then do so in warm. But if you have neither, then pour water on the head three times "in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit". And before the baptism, let the one baptizing and the one who is to be baptized fast, as well as any others who are able. Also, you must instruct the one who is to be baptized to fast for one or two days beforehand.

The Didache, it means The Teaching, is thought to have been written in the early 2nd century ie 110 AD-ish. Even though it is not scripture is gives a fascinating picture of church life at this time with itinerant prophets and lots of movement between the churches. The instruction for the person being baptized to fast for one of two prior to the occasion pretty much rules out any thought of infant baptisms I would have thought. :-P


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/5/6 14:51Profile
jeremyhulsey
Member



Joined: 2003/4/18
Posts: 777


 Re:

Philo wrote:

Quote:
I have The Didache here to hand



How come I'm not surprised that you have a copy :-P

I'm still waiting to purchase myself one. I remembered Professor Crabtree from CBC reading that section in my Church History class.


_________________
Jeremy Hulsey

 2004/5/6 16:36Profile
RobertW
Member



Joined: 2004/2/12
Posts: 4636
Independence, Missouri

 Re:

I reluctantly added a section on ritual immersion in the Jewish Roots thread as I hope it will shed some light on some of the issues.

God Bless,

-Robert


_________________
Robert Wurtz II

 2004/5/6 16:51Profile
gillian77
Member



Joined: 2004/5/4
Posts: 2


 Re: To immerse...or not to immerse?

If your view on batism is determined entirely upon the definition of a word, namely Baptiso, then might I suggest you rethink. What I mean is surely etymology cannot be used alone to determine doctrine/belief. The meaning lies in the context in which the word is set not simply in the word. Also the problem with the word Baptiso is that depending on the view of the person your speaking to you will be given a different definition for this word. The reason for this is clear enough it does have a wide range of meaning. If you had any specific texts that you wanted to discuss then perhaps that would be a good starting point in this area. And as far as discussion about the Didache goes surely the ultimate authority must be the Word of God. The Didache may be informative yet how much, if any, weight can be applied to it? After all Paul commands prophecies to be sifted yet the Didache forbids such, what do you believe?

I do hold to a paedo-baptist position yet I do not think that the amount of water is the main issue. Surely the important point that needs to be made is that baptism is a sign of God's covenant faithfulness and discussion about how much/little water is necessary misses the meaning. What do you think??

 2004/5/6 19:47Profile
jeremyhulsey
Member



Joined: 2003/4/18
Posts: 777


 Re:

Quote:
If your view on batism is determined entirely upon the definition of a word, namely Baptiso, then might I suggest you rethink. What I mean is surely etymology cannot be used alone to determine doctrine/belief. The meaning lies in the context in which the word is set not simply in the word. Also the problem with the word Baptiso is that depending on the view of the person your speaking to you will be given a different definition for this word.



While it is true that meanings of words do change over time, you are mistaken when you try to read a more current meaning of a word back into a time when it did not have such a meaning.

To make a short story longer I'll take the word hussy for example. If you call a women a hussy today in America you will be slapped for insulting her; however, calling a women a hussy in the 1700's and 1800's would be complimenting her on her integrity and character. Now if I use your suggested method of declaring the meaning of the word hussy I can only assume that now it must also be taken as an insult when I see it used in writings from the 18th and 19th centuries. In other words, it's all relative. But since relativity is self-defeating there must be another explanation. That would be that the meaning of hussy used hundreds of years ago still means a women of high moral character today, and will mean the same thing for all time. A thousand years from now a person reading an 18th century writing containing the word hussy will find that it is still a compliment in that time setting.


You will find that the same is true for the word baptiso. The only meaning that scripture can have for us today is what it meant when it was written. If that is not the case then scripture is subject to change every time the meaning of words change. Baptiso in the time context of scripture meant to immerse or to go down. That is the only reading that we can logically and ethically take it to mean when we translate it today. If not then hermenutics and exegesis means absolutely nothing.

Quote:
I do hold to a paedo-baptist position ...

And as far as discussion about the Didache goes surely the [i]ultimate authority must be the Word of God.[/i]



My question then would be, "From what part of the Word of God did you develope a paedo-baptist position?" My second would be, "Do you believe in baptismal regeneration?"

In Christ,
Jeremy Hulsey


_________________
Jeremy Hulsey

 2004/5/6 21:20Profile
gillian77
Member



Joined: 2004/5/4
Posts: 2


 Re:

Quote;

..you are mistaken when you try to read a more current meaning of a word back into a time when it did not have such a meaning...

Hi Jeremy,
I think that you may have read my posting a little out of context. I do not seem to be able to find the part where I suggested reading a current meaning into a biblical word. The points that you make in reply to my posting were the very points I was trying to point out.

I am in absolute agreement that the meaning we must have for baptiso is what the word meant in the first century for the writers of scripture. The problem is however as I alluede to it does not have as clear cut a meaning as your suggesting. For instance Dr. Gale, who was an solid believer in immersion, was forced to say, and I quote,

"The word baptiso perhaps does not necessarily epress the action of putting under water, as in general a thing's being in that condition, no matter how it comes to be so, whether it is put into the water, or the water comes over it,; though indeed to put into water is the most natural way and the most common, and is, therefore , usually and pretty constantly, but it may not necessarily be implied"

These are not the words of a paedo-baptist but a baptist. What do you think??

Also in answer to your question, No, I do not hold to baptismal regeneration.

Every Blessing.

 2004/5/7 5:13Profile
CJaKfOrEsT
Member



Joined: 2004/3/31
Posts: 901
Melbourne, Australia

 Re:

Firstly, for those interested in the Didache, it can be found at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html . I would like to begin by saying that I intentionally didn't begin with a scriptural viewpoint on this issue to inspire open and frank discussion.
References to burial (Rom 6:3-4;Col 2:12), and the flood (1Pe 3:20-21), would seem to imply a total covering over with water.
This is really only a beginning. It is more important that the truth is settled in your heart than to be able to quote a scripture (wait before you boo and hiss :-)). I know this is a dangerous statement, and what I mean by it is that if the words that we read in The Bible are mere pieces of information, then they are of little value. But they need to be breathed upon by God and established in your heart as revealed truth. I'm not alluding to a utilitarian approach of "well of course it's right because I know", but a process where the Word becomes alive and can be spoken of as "fact" without the required chapter and verse references. It is important that all truth is established in scripture, and that scripture references can be given if requested.
I hope that I'm heard right, as the process of establihing doctrine, is not the point of this thread, but the actual doctrine itself.


_________________
Aaron Ireland

 2004/5/7 5:27Profile
philologos
Member



Joined: 2003/7/18
Posts: 6566
Reading, UK

 Re: blancing or a marinade?

There is a fascinating distinction between bapto and baptizo which will be found here.


_________________
Ron Bailey

 2004/5/7 6:52Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy