Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Which method of baptism Bible supported? | Bible general Archive 1 | Makarios | 5579 | ||
As I seek to become rebaptized this summer, the church that I attend uses the method of immersion to baptise. I have seen sprinkling, pouring, and immersion baptisms take place. According to scripture, is there are 'right' way to be baptised? Which way (immersion, sprinking, pouring) is best according to scripture? | ||||||
2 | Which method of baptism Bible supported? | Bible general Archive 1 | ezekiel | 5668 | ||
the bible reflects only one mode of baptism-TOTAL IMMERSION-is hardly questionable.This mode was the original practice and continued in general use upto the middle ages. (Baptizo) literally means to"immerse," and nothing else. Refer to ACTS 2;38,Matt3:13-16,Mark 1:41,John 3:23,Acts 8:38,39. (1) Baptism is a biblical command, so we should follow the biblical mode. In view of the importance the Bible describes it. (2)Jesus was immersed as an example for us to follow. If he who did not need baptism (except to fulfill the pattern of the new birth(Matthew 3:15), submitted to immersion, how much mor3e should we? If baptism is worth doing, it is worth doing the way Jesus and the apostles did it. Other modes of baptism come from nonbiblical tradition, and tradition is a poor substitute for biblical teaching. Read (Mark 7:8) and (Matthew 15:6) What Jesus says aabout traditions of men. |
||||||
3 | Which method of baptism Bible supported? | Bible general Archive 1 | Searcher56 | 5693 | ||
Matthew 3:16 and Acts 8:38-39 do not mean immersion. Did John the Baptist baptized in the Jordan River because there was much water there? The Bible speaks of the baptism of Jesus in Matthew 3:16: And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him. Does this verse teach without question that Jesus went up out of the water, and, therefore, He must have been immersed? This verse does not speak of immersion. This verse says He went up out of the water. How must we understand this phrase? The Biblical rule is that we are to seek help from the Bible. Doing so, we come to Acts 8:38-39, where the Bible describes the water baptism of the Ethiopian eunuch. We read there: And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing. Notice that verse 39 speaks of coming up out of the water which is the very same phrase that describes Jesus going up out of the water. What does verse 38 say? It says, "they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch." Whatever action the eunuch took was an exact duplicate of that which Philip took. They both went down into the water. To make sure that we have not misunderstood, the emphasis is added, both Philip and the eunuch. Therefore, if going down into the water implies immersion, then we must conclude that Philip immersed himself at the same time he immersed the eunuch. Such a conclusion, of course, makes no sense. God is simply teaching that there was a body of water, and that Philip and the eunuch both went down the bank into the water. There they stood ankle deep or knee deep (how deep is altogether unimportant), and Philip baptized the eunuch. Later in our study, we will see that the Bible suggests the mode of baptism, and it will not be immersion. Therefore, if going down into the water implies immersion, then we must conclude that Philip immersed himself at the same time he immersed the eunuch. Jesus had to be ceremonially washed before He could do the work of the High Priest. He was not only the Lamb that was offered, but He was also the High Priest. Do you recall that the priests were ceremonially washed before they ministered at the altar. Exodus 30:18-21: Thou shalt also make a laver of brass, and his foot also of brass, to wash withal: and thou shalt put it between the tabernacle of the congregation and the altar, and thou shalt put water therein. For Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet thereat: When they go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they shall wash with water, that they die not; or when they come near to the altar to minister, to burn offering made by fire unto the LORD: So they shall wash their hands and their feet, that they die not: and it shall be a statute for ever to them, even to him and to his seed throughout their generations. The priests hands and feet were washed. That was the washing Jesus had to experience before ministering at the altar of sacrifice. Thus, we would not in any way expect that Jesus was immersed when He was baptized. Read my Mark 7:4, Luke 11:38, Hebrews 9:10 post. BTW this is a minor point. |
||||||
4 | The baptizer also immersed? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 5720 | ||
Steve Butler, your note has me as confused as a turkey in a hen house. I'm particularly perplexed by your statement, "Therefore, if going down into the water imples immersion, then we must conclude that Philip immersefd himself at the same time he immersed the eunuch." Really? Is that what you think happened? And just how did Philip manage to dunk himself while dunking the eunuch? I'd like to have seen that. It must have been quite a trick. Two people go down into the water, one to baptize the other, but both of them are necessarily immersed. Do I have it right? Have you ever witnessed baptism by immersion? Two people go down into the water, one to baptize the other. That is simple enough to figure out. How does one immerse the other without going into the water with him? And how does the baptizer immerse himself at the same time that he is immersing the person who is being baptized? Do we both understand immersion in the same way as the dictionary defines it, to plunge into something that covers up?......Last week my dentist and I went into a treatment room in his office. He filled two of my teeth. I didn't see him fill two of his teeth while he was filling mine. How was it possible for him to fill my teeth without filling his?.... Some years ago I went into an operating room in the hospital, my surgeon joined me in the same room, and he performed a medical operation on me. But so far as I know he didn't perform any such operation on himself. How was it possible for him to operate on me without operating on himself? Do you think your argument about immersion in water holds water? ....Moreover, in your note you equate Christian baptism with Jewish ceremonial washing. Therefore, should we conclude that apples are the same things as oranges? --Hank | ||||||
5 | The baptizer also immersed? | Bible general Archive 1 | Searcher56 | 5721 | ||
I do know what immersion is. The church I now attend, only the one getting baptized is in the water. The other one is on dry land, separated by a low wall. I grew up in a Baptist church. The way I read Acts 8, I see that both went into the water and came out ... and it does not say there was any immersion, dunking or dipping. We do not know how deep the water was. How do you answer Mark 7:4, Luke 11:38, Hebrews 9:10? Read that post. About the OT in the NT ... there are many examples, and I think this includes baptism. I think immersion is okay. But, if you are in a desert (with no name) and you only had a cup full of water, could you be baptized? |
||||||
6 | The baptizer also immersed? | Bible general Archive 1 | Hank | 5725 | ||
Steve, if I were in a desert (with no name) -- whatever that means -- and had only a cup full of water, I would probably choose to drink the water and defer my baptism until I found my way to greener pastures. This argument is getting no one anywhere. Pig trails of this sort lead one only to the mire of the sty. I choose to end my participation in it herewith. --Hank | ||||||