where do the authorities come from for the sprinkle? i'm in a bind and can't properly search the forum, so if anyone can link me to discussions about it, i'd be grateful. i'm in an email conversation with someone and i would like to make sure i understand all sides of the argument. thanks.

Easy- baptism is in the Bible and sprinking is made up.

baptism by immersion -- The Dunk -- comes from the Bible in the sense that this is what the Greek work baptizo means -- to immerse something. From the Greek lexicon:

quote:

---

1. to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2. to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
3. to overwhelm

The clearest example that shows the 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.

---

http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=907&version=kjv

On a tangent that may lead to something, John MacArthur and R.C. Sproul have a great debate on beliver's baptism vs infant baptism called the Pasedena Baptism Debate.

Pouring water on the head was an accepted practice for Baptism, per the Didache.

quote:

---

"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).

---

Baptism by immersion only is not wrong, but to exclude pouring on the head is silly. The early church practiced it. The authority came from Christ and His apostles to do so.

If sprinkling is wrong, then so is immersion in a dunking tank, rather than a river, like was done in the bible.

As long as it is done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit...

I believe the operative portion of the term is to be cleansed, as in from your sins… The reason there are pourings and sprinklings is that scriptures give allusion to this.


Isaiah 52:15
Thus He will sprinkle many nations, Kings will shut their mouths on account of Him;For what had not been told them they will see,And what they had not heard they will understand.

Hebrews 10:22 let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

Peter 1:2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

Isaiah 32:15 Until the Spirit is poured out upon us from on high,And the wilderness becomes a fertile field,And the fertile field is considered as a forest.

Romans 5:5 and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

The fact is that When the 5000 were added to the church in Jerusalem there was no water supply large enough outside of the well at the center of town. It would not have been allowed to climbed into that. The Jordan river was over 19 miles away. The fact is that in some environments water is too precious for people to take baths in bath tubs. The real issue is that it’s not so much about which mode you do, but it’s showing forth what God has done. It is God who made us born again to a living hope in Christ Jesus. It is God who united us with Him, and thereby made us clean.


[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 9/22/2006 6:54p).]

quote:

---

If sprinkling is wrong, then so is immersion in a dunking tank, rather than a river, like was done in the bible.

---

I don't see any river mandate in scripture.

If there any justification for an informed Christian to choose to be sprinkled over being immersed?

I just don't see it. The word means immersion. When we are told to be baptized, we are being told to be immersed. Jesus was immersed. Why would we not follow His example instead of trust to speculation about the water sources in Jerusalem?

Again...is there any good reason for a follower of Jesus to decline immersion baptism?

Baptism: Immersion Only?
http://www.catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp

If there is a short water supply, or if there are extenuating circumstances, then I don't think it's too big of a deal. However, sprinkling or pouring doesn't give the fullness of the image of baptism that Jesus was trying to show.

We are buried with Christ in our baptism -- put into the water completely, and then raised out of death to walk in newness of life. Only immersion demonstrates this fully. It's not only about cleansing, it's about a resurrection into a new life.

Lots of interesting rationale about sprinkling, pouring, etc. I wonder if God has an opinion on the subject? All the thinking of men in the world doesn't count for a fig if God wants baptism performed in a specific way.

While the Jordan River was inconvenient for the population in Jerusalem, I find it interesting that John the Baptist chose it as a place to do his work "because there was much water there" John 3:23. In other words, convenient or not, the baptisms necessitated sufficient water for immersion. And since Christ shows us the way, I'd think this issue may be far less debatable in God's eyes than we might want to think.

jkag89:

quote:

---

"Concerning baptism, baptize in this manner: Having said all these things beforehand, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water, baptize in other water; and, if you are not able to use cold water, use warm. If you have neither, pour water three times upon the head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."

---

Assuming the accuracy of the date given for this passage, all this passage does is verify that, according to the early church, people should be immersed if immersion is possible. So, if immersion is possible for you or I, then we should be immersed, and that is the proper teaching of any church/

Here's another vote for immersion if possible.

I know of a case where a severely handicapped believer had been sprinkled by a Baptist preacher because of the person's health situation: immersion would have presented a severe health risk, very possibly death.

Some people in the church got their panties in a knot about this and the person was immersed with two paramedics standing by with oxygen and who knows what.

That is what I'd call too much of a good thing.

In the Septuagint (Dan 5:21), it is said that Nebuchadnezzar was “baptized” with the dew of heaven. How is that immersing, or dipping him? We see an example in a poem attributed to Homer, called The Battle of the Frogs and Mice, it is stated that a certain lake was “baptized” with the blood of a wounded combatant--(Ebapteto a? aimati limne porpureo.), again the Baptist friendly scholar that appeals to the recipe for making pickles does not seem to be capable of locating this example, does he? You Baptists need to get a little more honest with your scholarship!

Here is a link to a letter that has some good information:

http://www.amprpress.com/LettersSampleChap.htm

quote:

---

Assuming the accuracy of the date given for this passage, all this passage does is verify that, according to the early church, people should be immersed if immersion is possible.

---

lar- I do not see how you can assume that from just from the quote cited from the Didache. Then again you are reading it from the position that baptism automatically equals immersion where I am not.

quote:

---

So, if immersion is possible for you or I, then we should be immersed, and that is the proper teaching of any church/

---

If this were the case then why are we arguing this unless you meant to state- and that should be the proper teaching of any church.

[This message has been edited by jkag89 (edited 9/23/2006 12:29p).]

jkag:

I meant "should be." (Although the word "proper" is a sufficient qualifier.)

Using the text I quoted from your source as a guide, hopw should one be baptized if they have the ability to get to "living water?"

The other choices ony apply, according to the text your source quotes, if there is no other option.

quote:

---

baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water [that is, in running water, as in a river]. If there is no living water,

---

quote:

---

You Baptists need to get a little more honest with your scholarship!

---

Notafraid, still an ass.

[This message has been edited by letters at random (edited 9/23/2006 12:35p).]

quote:

---

The other choices only apply, according to the text your source quotes, if there is no other option.

---

lar- In my opinion you are reading that into the text.

quote:

---

Much of the earliest Christian artwork depicts baptism—but not baptism by immersion! If the recipient of the sacrament is in a river, he is shown standing in the river while water is poured over his head from a cup or shell.

---

If what you state is the case why does the art work from about the same period show otherwise.

This text says, "do it this way. If you can't, then it is OK to do it this way.

I don't understand how that is reading anything into the text.


Again I ask, why would anyone, all things being equal, choose not to be immersed?

When has lying down in water ever symbolized lying down dead in the ground? I see no real good symbolism in that. The Holy Spirit being poured out at Pentecost seems like more biblical symbolism to me, or that He sprinkles the nations, and the sprinkling of the mercy seat in the OT seems pretty symbolic as well.

Of course we have the picture of a an ancient Christian baptism on the catacombs of water being poured out of a seashell. Those things seem like the most meaningful forms of baptism to me. That baptismal tubs and pools were invented later, when more modern convinces and easy access to water were more available in certain specific places in the world, that had enough affluence and technology to provide for it, seems as silly as the health and wealth doctrines. Any Christian teachings that can’t be duplicated worldwide, no matter how much access to water, or money, or technology that people have is a bunch of legalistic, man made garbage.

Notafraid (Sorry, I was loged into our laptop as Lovelight)


[This message has been edited by Mrs. Lovelight (edited 9/23/2006 3:33p).]

Vagabond

quote:

---

Just make sure you guys use a corded mic in that dunk tank.

---

I don't think that's appropriate humor..



[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 9/23/2006 4:38p).]

quote:

---

When has lying down in water ever symbolized lying down dead in the ground? I see no real good symbolism in that. The Holy Spirit being poured out at Pentecost seems like more biblical symbolism to me, or that He sprinkles the nations, and the sprinkling of the mercy seat in the OT seems pretty symbolic as well.

---

You see no real symbolism in a person that is completely immersed under water, and coming out looking different? Well, I see alot.

And Homer, as in the... poet? Maybe, I don't know, he was using a metaphor to demonstrate his point? Same thing with Daniel. The NASB translates it as "drenched". This Greek word was used to demonstrate the amount of wet-ness (word?).

I didn't write the Greek lexicon. It's not a Baptist lexicon. The word simply means 'immersed'. Notafraid, for all the times that you accuse others of reading something different into the text, it seems that you now are reading your denominatinal preconceptions into this topic. A person coming along and reading these texts in Greek with no prior knowledge of a Christian baptism will read it as people being dunked in water.

However, I'm not saying that a pouring baptism is not valid, or is sin, or anything like that. The only reason I responded to the thread was to note where the idea of dunking came from.

I think LAR has a good point. Why, in a situation where water is plenty accesible, would you choose not to be immersed?

Setsmachine,

Well, you see that the lexicon also gives this meaning: “to make clean with water”, so, why wouldn’t that be emphasized as the main gist of it in your view? Why must you only focus in on the term immersed, and say that it just means that? Is that honest? Must that always be attached to it?

Part of my problem here with your views is that you never read this link:

http://www.amprpress.com/LettersSampleChap.htm

or even the Roman Catholic link either, because if you had, you wouldn’t have been so self confident, that it could only mean just that one thing that you want to emphasize.

This is what I meant by the Baptists needing to get a little more honest with their scholarship.
You should try just giving what others have found in the scriptures a look.

As far as your mention of the term being used as a metaphor. That is what a sacrament is, a kind of visible metaphor for an invisible spiritual reality.


[This message has been edited by Notafraid (edited 9/23/2006 11:57p).]

quote:

---

where do the authorities come from for the sprinkle?

---

The Roman Catholic Church.

quote:

---

quote:

---

where do the authorities come from for the sprinkle?

---

The Roman Catholic Church.

---

Um no. The primary way of baptism in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church is by infusion (pouring). I have never seen a Catholic baptism by sprinkling (the Church does see the method as valid), only by infusion or less commonly by full immersion.

Jkag,

I think pouring is great!

Acts 2:33
"Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear.

Acts 10:45
All the circumcised believers who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also.

But I think sprinkling is great too…

1 Peter 1:2
according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

Isaiah 52:15
Thus He will sprinkle many nations, Kings will shut their mouths on account of Him;For what had not been told them they will see,And what they had not heard they will understand.

Hebrews 10:22 let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

Peter 1:2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in the fullest measure.

Now Baptists say that emersion is the proper way, because the word only means that, but really they dunk, they don’t normally lay people down, and when they do, people are normally holding their nose, and it does not look like they are dead, but are kind of fighting that process in holding their noses, and contorting their faces, to pinch shut their eyes tight. If there is any symbolism in that, it looks more like a willful insistence not to see at the moment…

IN any case, there are no verses in the scriptures that I can see where either laying down in water, being covered by water, or being dunked in water have greater meaning in all of the types and symbols found in the scriptures, or the Holy Spirit coming upon them, or being washed in the blood of the lamb such as pouring and sprinkling do.

Only a blind man cannot see that baptism is simply immersion, and that it is not "baptism by immersion", or "baptism by pouring", or "baptism by sprinkling".

The scriptures you cite are NOT about the "baptism into Christ", but of the working of God...

It is no wonder you are confused about this, you aren't dealing with the scriptures that speak directly to the particular TOPIC.
Baptism into Christ... after one is baptized into Christ his sins are washed away, then all the meanings you speak of from scriptures can be applied. (not the "Holy Spirit Baptism" on the Apostles and later on Gentiles)

[This message has been edited by AgGermany (edited 9/24/2006 10:45a).]

quote:

---

Easy- baptism is in the Bible and sprinking is made up.

---

Easy - BOTH are made up.

jk,

quote:

---

Um no. The primary way of baptism in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church is by infusion (pouring). I have never seen a Catholic baptism by sprinkling (the Church does see the method as valid), only by infusion or less commonly by full immersion.

---

Um, yaaa, you admit "the (Roman Catholic) Church does see the method (sprinkling)as valid..." It is still not baptism as found in scripture. Baptism = immersion it is what the word means, not what the Catholic church says it means.

Biz, you are correct, the Lord made up this strange scheme/call/gospel that when believed results in sins being washed away.

Men made up sins.

quote:

---

Baptism = immersion it is what the word means, not what the Catholic church says it means.

---

Yes it is the primary meaning of the word but not the only meaning and not the only way it is used in scripture.

[This message has been edited by jkag89 (edited 9/24/2006 12:05p).]

Sprinkling is symbolic.

Immersion is obedient.

quote:

---

Sprinkling is symbolic.

Immersion is obedient.

---

Picadillo- Please explain.