Results 1 - 2 of 2
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | How can you explain the SDA faiths? | NT general | Searcher56 | 229478 | ||
Scripture ... Mark 7:4, Luke 11:38, 1Co 10:2, Heb 9:10, Rev 19:13 ... Gen 37:21, Exo 12:22, 2 Ki 5:14 … Let me add something you may never hear from someone who grew up as a "Baptist", while 74 times baptize and its kin is translated baptize, baptism, et al, (never immersion) there are four verses, where it is translated washing/washed. -- Mark 7:4 says “And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables” (KJV). Some translations leave "tables" out. It could be that they view baptism as being dipped or immersed. It would be hard to dip or immerse tables to clean them. Nonetheless, the people did not immerse themselves they come from the market … they probably dipped in, poured over or washed part of their body. -- Luke 11:38 says, “And when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that he had not first washed before dinner.” -- Hebrews 9:10 says, “various washings”, which I believe is ceremonial, as with the other verses. -- Revelation 19:13, where a derivative of the word bapto is used, as well as all of the other verses where we find the words bapto or embapto, give us no clue as to the meaning of the word "baptism." The Hebrews baptized in sea (1Co 10:2), but did any get wet? In the Septuagint the verb is Tabal … in 2 Kings 5:14, of Naaman's dipped himself in Jordan (cf Gen 37:21, Exo 12:22) … In Leviticus there are 6 times this word is used (4:6; 4:17; 9:9; 14:6; 14:16; 14:51) In post 22969, kalos, posted the following: "There are three modes (or mehods) of water baptism used in Christian churches today: immersion (in which the person is completely submerged), affusion (that is, pouring), and aspersion (sprinkling). Evangelical Christians are divided on the question of which mode or modes are proper forms of baptism. Some Christians (typically those who believe that only believers should be baptized) think that immersion is the only valid mode, while other Christians (usually those who recognize the validity of infant baptism) consider all three modes to be acceptable. (...) "Those who believe that all three modes are valid would point out that only in the most ritualistic view of baptism can the amount of water be considered important. The immersion-only view, they say, appears absurd: What if one hair fails to be immersed? What if a finger or a hand? Where does one draw the line? But the opposing argument can be made to appear absurd also: If a small amount of water is permissible, is one drop enough? How about no water at all (not a view to be laughed away, since the "Quakers" take this exact view)? Where does one draw the line at this end? Therefore, the better approach is to realize that it is the general form of the act and the intention of those involved that matter, not the precise amount of water used. The issue is: Shall we obey the command of Christ as He intended or shall we obey the command in a way that pleases us? (...) "What shall we conclude from these observations? "It seems clear to us that immersion is the biblical norm, but that it is not an inflexible norm. That is, Scripture and common sense indicate that the water is not all-important and that, therefore, other modes may be used as substitutes in exceptional circumstances. God accepts the believer on the basis of his faith in Christ and his desire to obey Him, not on the basis of how much water covered his body when he was baptized. The doctrine that immersion is the only valid mode of baptism and that only those so baptized should be admitted into the fellowship of the Church body would, therefore, appear to be a bit extreme and not based on Scripture. The Church should welcome into its fellowship all those whom Christ has accepted (Romans 15:7, I John 1:3)" … His source was www.equip.org/articles/the-mode-of-baptism. Also read http://www.wrs.edu/Materials_for_Web_Site/Courses/Theology_4/Chapter_8-Mode_Baptism.pdf. |
||||||
2 | How can you explain the SDA faiths? | NT general | biblicalman | 229491 | ||
The word baptizo means 'to drench', and derivatively 'to overwhelm' (looking at both Biblical and secular usage). What a word means is not determined by its root, but by how it is used. (The use of bapto is therefore irrelevant to its meaning). The Pharisees did not wash their hands they drenched them, pouring water over hands and wrists. Paul's use in 1 Cor 10 was metaphorical. The Israelites were not really baptised, thus whether they got wet or not is irrelevant. Paul is using the word as a technical term. Certainly in the UK you will not find any baptists that I know of who suggest that baptism saves. Indeed they could not, otherwise they would not allow a delay in baptism after salvation. I know of no UK baptist church thast insists on baptising people the moment they believe. Most would insist on a course of instruction to ensure that the person knows what they are doing. Salvation occurs through faith in Jesus Christ and His blood shed for us, not through baptism. Baptism is simply a final visible seal indicating outwardly that the person is claiming to have been sealed by the Spirit, baptism in water being important but not vital. The reason Baptists practise immersion is: 1) because they believe that that is how it is portrayed in Scripture. 2) because they believe it better portrays the idea of dying with Christ and rising with Him, which is the main meaning of baptism in Scripture. It is only a sacramentalist who would suggest that it mattered whether every part of the head and body were covered. Few UK baptists are sacramentalists. But of course as immersion means going right under the water it is difficult to see how any part could not be covered by water. Thus if there is absurdity, the absurdity that talks about a part not being covered lies with those who suggest otherwise. (It is a pity that Christians try to point to other Christians as having absurd ideas. Whatever they may be they are rarely if ever absurd. Baptists could say that sacramentalist ideas are absurd, some probably do, but I do not think it right to do so. Such ideas may be wrong, but they are not absurd. We should respect each others views). I write this not in order to promote baptists but in order to correct any fales impressions that may have been gained from what has previously been said. Best wishes. |
||||||