[Biblestudent]

(This if my fourth consecutive post. )

Looking at the versus above, the words "sprinkle" and "washing" are found in the New Testament.

"Baptism", however, can nowhere be found in the Old Testament. "Baptism" is a New Testament concept that began with John THE BAPTIST. He was the sent "to baptize", and the FIRST one to baptize.

In my observation, it appears that John's and Peter's baptism have the same meaning (and mode):

Mode: Baptism WITH water (picturing the baptism WITH the Holy Ghost and WITH fire)
Meaning: Baptism of repentance FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS ("when the times of refreshing shall come", Acts 3:19)

Paul's baptism, I believe, is unique (since he is unique apostle with a unique message to a unique body of people)

Mode: Baptism INTO water (picturing our Salvation, Position, and Gospel)
Meaning: Baptism BY one Spirit INTO the body of Christ, our being "buried into Christ", as well as the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ

[Biblestudent]

Originally Posted by Scott Swart

When John the baptist was baptizing in Jordan, it is quite easy to assume that he was immersing people. The Lord Jesus was baptized in this manner. In Acts ch.8 Philip and the Ethiopian went down into the water. For what purpose? To immerse?
Whether we sprinkle or immerse isn't really the issue. The issue is the baptism that matters at the moment of conversion, the baptism by the Spirit into the body of Christ.

Hi, Scott!

I seem to view things a little differently with our strong Bible Believing brethren here. The "Heresy and Heresies" thread is quite "hot", and I hope mine won't be one.

Concerning Acts 8, I don't think that since Philip and the Ethiopian went down "into the water", it would mean that Philip immersed the Ethiopian, for the text says both went down into the water.

Acts 8:38 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.

The question would be: Did "both" of them immerse together?

Looking at the text again, it says that after "both" went "down" "into" the water, Philip baptized him. So the "down...into" does not necessarily refer to the baptism but to both of them going down to the water.

[stephanos]

Originally Posted by Biblestudent

Hi, Scott!

I seem to view things a little differently with our strong Bible Believing brethren here. The "Heresy and Heresies" thread is quite "hot", and I hope mine won't be one.

Concerning Acts 8, I don't think that since Philip and the Ethiopian went down "into the water", it would mean that Philip immersed the Ethiopian, for the text says both went down into the water.

Acts 8:38 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.

The question would be: Did "both" of them immerse together?

Looking at the text again, it says that after "both" went "down" "into" the water, Philip baptized him. So the "down...into" does not necessarily refer to the baptism but to both of them going down to the water.

Correction: both of them went down into the water. The only reason for going into the water is to be able to immerse the convert into the water (just like John the Baptist in Luther's translation is translated "John the Dunker"). Any other form of baptism could be performed from the shore.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

[Biblestudent]

Hello, Brother Stephanos and others!

First of all, I would like to let everyone know that I am a Baptist and I baptize by immersion for Biblical reasons. Also, one thing I learned in my 11 young years of ministry, I don't have to force every passage to fit the doctrine and practice of the present age.

One example is on the issue of baptism. As a Baptist, I've been trained to believe that water baptism is by immersion, not because there is a verse that directly teaches that, but because the Greek word baptizo means "immersion" and that it is a picture of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

As a KJB believer, I'm a little cautious of going back to the "Greek". As a dispensationalist, I am aware of the other "extreme" that water baptism ought not be practiced in this age. As a Bible student, I heard someone who practiced baptism yet said that John the Baptist poured. The teaching was not clear to me, and of course, I disagreed! When I made my own investigations, I found it has some truth.

I noticed I have too many posts in this thread, but my purpose is to share the little that I learned. And, no, this is not one of my "pet" doctrines; this is just something that opened up a lot of Scriptures for me.

In rightly dividing the word of truth, one principle in Bible interpretation that I've learned and I found to work all the time is that "Context (not the word) determine the meaning."

For example:
What is the baptism WITH the Holy Ghost?
1. It's not baptism BY one Spirit.
2. It's not baptism INTO the body of Christ.
3. It's defined in the context (of Acts 2, 10, and 11) as the POURING of the Holy Ghost (fulfillment of Joel 2 and other OT passages).

Here is a baptism, which is not immersion, but a pouring. No doubt about it.

What is the baptism WITH fire?
I jumped into the conclusion that it is being cast INTO fire (Rev. 20:14; 21:8).
However, I saw that:
1. It's not baptism INTO fire (Rev. 20:14).
2. It is baptism WITH fire.
Reading Old Testament history and prophecies and the book of Revelation, I saw that God will one day:
1. POUR out his wrath upon the earth, and
2. POUR out fire upon the earth.
3. This is not people being put INTO his wrath.
4. This is not people being submerged into fire.
5. This is not yet lake of fire (Rev. 20:10).
6. This is not in eternity.
7. This is upon the earth.
8. That will be before eternity (Rev. 20:9).

What then baptism WITH water would mean?'
1. I guess it could not mean baptism INTO water.
2. I guess it is baptizing someone WITH water.
3. If baptism WITH the Holy Ghost is POURING, and baptism WITH fire is POURING, I guess both baptisms are best pictured ("figure", 1 Pet. 3:21) by baptism WITH water - and that has to be POURING.

Note also:

For Christ to be "baptized WITH":
Matthew 20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.

Is to have something LAID ON him:
Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.

Why I water baptize:
1. Paul did water baptize (1 Cor. 1).
2. Paul mentions "ordinances" (1 Cor. 11) and one of them has to be water baptism.

Why I baptize by immersion:
1. Immersion pictures our Salvation ("baptized BY one Spirit INTO the body of Christ", 1 Cor. 12:13)
2. Immersion pictures our Identification/Position ("buried INTO Christ by baptism INTO his death", Rom 6:1-4)
3. Immersion picture the Gospel of Grace ("death, burial, and resurrection of Christ", 1 Cor. 15:1-4)
4. We may also add, immersion also pictures the Judgment for those who reject the Gospel in the Age of Grace. Fire is not "poured" on them, but they're going to be "CAST INTO" the lake of fire. That is, if they don't get "baptized INTO Christ", they're going to be baptized "INTO the lake of fire".

I hope this makes sense.

[Biblestudent]

Originally Posted by stephanos

Correction: both of them went down into the water. The only reason for going into the water is to be able to immerse the convert into the water (just like John the Baptist in Luther's translation is translated "John the Dunker"). Any other form of baptism could be performed from the shore.

Hello, again, Stephanos! I forgot to address that one.

Having settled (hopefully) in the previous post that baptism by pouring outside the Church Age is more than possible, I offer the following possible solutions. Briefly:

1. John the Baptist was in the wilderness and there is not "much water" in the wilderness. So he had to go down the Jordan River, for there is "much water" there.

a. Pouring (just as immersion) can be done even if one is down in the river, can't it?
b. There were too much people. It would be double work to fetch buckets of water. Much better get down in the river and pour on them "much water".

Note: After John baptized Jesus WITH water, Jesus went up out of the water (not rose above water, but "out of the water" to the riverside) was then baptized WITH the Holy Ghost DESCENDING from heaven and lighting UPON him.

2. Philip and the Ethiopian both went down into the water because:

Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

a. Philip can't pour anything; there's no water up there. But "here is water" down here.
b. It would be difficult for Philip to go up and down and get water with his hand and pour on the eunuch, but it's certainly much easier for both of them to go down where there is water.

Again, I'm not forcing anything to anyone here, but what I'm trying to show is that it is certainly possible that John and Philip (and the Twelve) could have poured.

But, again, the "figure" is the most important thing for me. Possibilities are abundant, but the doctrine is what is important:

If water baptism under the gospel of the kingdom is a picture of anything, then it has to picture the pouring of the Holy Ghost and the coming from heavenof the King and the Kingdom down to earth.

[stephanos]

Originally Posted by Biblestudent

Hello, again, Stephanos! I forgot to address that one.

Having settled (hopefully) in the previous post that baptism by pouring outside the Church Age is more than possible, I offer the following possible solutions. Briefly:

1. John the Baptist was in the wilderness and there is not "much water" in the wilderness. So he had to go down the Jordan River, for there is "much water" there.

a. Pouring (just as immersion) can be done even if one is down in the river, can't it?
b. There were too much people. It would be double work to fetch buckets of water. Much better get down in the river and pour on them "much water".

Note: After John baptized Jesus WITH water, Jesus went up out of the water (not rose above water, but "out of the water" to the riverside) was then baptized WITH the Holy Ghost DESCENDING from heaven and lighting UPON him.

2. Philip and the Ethiopian both went down into the water because:

Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

a. Philip can't pour anything; there's no water up there. But "here is water" down here.
b. It would be difficult for Philip to go up and down and get water with his hand and pour on the eunuch, but it's certainly much easier for both of them to go down where there is water.

Again, I'm not forcing anything to anyone here, but what I'm trying to show is that it is certainly possible that John and Philip (and the Twelve) could have poured.

But, again, the "figure" is the most important thing for me. Possibilities are abundant, but the doctrine is what is important:

If water baptism under the gospel of the kingdom is a picture of anything, then it has to picture the pouring of the Holy Ghost and the coming from heavenof the King and the Kingdom down to earth.

I see your point. I just think that if pouring was the mode in this case, the two would have gone down "to" the water, not "in" the water. It doesn't make sense for Philip to get wet if he doesn't have to, ya know?

Peace and Love,
Stephen

[Biblestudent]

Well, maybe, it's really hot in the desert. That's why!

Could it be possible that first they poured, then they dived?

[stephanos]

Originally Posted by Biblestudent

Well, maybe, it's really hot in the desert. That's why!

Could it be possible that first they poured, then they dived?

LOL, you had to really stretch to make those Smilies work, lol.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

[Forrest]

Originally Posted by Biblestudent

I'm okay with the icon if it represents Philip's head sticking up as he holds the Ethiopian eunich under the water. Baptizing him in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Buried with Him in baptism and raised to walk in the newness of life.

[stephanos]

Originally Posted by Forrest

I'm okay with the icon if it represents Philip's head sticking up as he holds the Ethiopian eunich under the water. Baptizing him in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Buried with Him in baptism and raised to walk in the newness of life.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMEN!



Peace and Love,
Stephen