Protestants, when did the Catholic Church go bad?

[1voice]

That’s all well and good, but those weren’t the examples that I cited; the examples that I listed use baptizo and I’m curious what you thought about them. I think perhaps you’re confusing what a word can mean with what a word must necessarily mean.

Well, Thats exactly what this labyrinth has come down to. My research and the context of the word in the New Testament show that the word Baptism is closer to immersion than to other alternatives. It is the same word used (“baptizo” in the Septuagint Greek) when Naaman was told by Elisha to wash 7 times in the Jordan.

 

[1voice]

No I just looked it up the old fashioned way. “Antiquities” and “Jewish Wars” are Josephus’s most famous works. This is from the former. Try “Jewish Antiquities” or “Antiquities of the Jews.”

Thanks, I’ll check it out.

 

[1voice]

No, I had not seen it before. Thanks for the info.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Well, Thats exactly what this labyrinth has come down to. My research and the context of the word in the New Testament show that the word Baptism is closer to immersion than to other alternatives. It is the same word used (“baptizo” in the Septuagint Greek) when Naaman was told by Elisha to wash 7 times in the Jordan.

Well, that’s sort of the point. The sources you’re pasting from seem quite insistent that baptizo absolutely always and everywhere has meant immersion. That’s quite misleading, IMO, and also I don’t think even think in concert with what you’re expressing above. Sure, there are cases in Greek where baptizo does mean that (to sink, etc.), but baptizo doesn’t NECESSARILY always mean that, even in the New Testament itself. Or, when Naaman goes into the Jordan in your example above, how exactly does he wash? We aren’t told. The point is, he washed himself with water from the Jordan–it’s the washing and the “getting wet” or even “getting pretty wet” that’s relevant, not the exact gnats-eye technique of the washing and whether every part of his body was simultaneously covered with water.

Just as another illustration, another meaning of baptizo is “to drench” (see my earlier dictionary citation). There are plenty of ways to be drenched without being fully immersed in liquid. I can tell you that it’s been raining pretty hard here and I’ve been drenched several times this week But I was (thank God) never immersed in water.

Words have a variety of meanings and nuances in different contexts; that’s just the way language works.

 

[1voice]

That’s all well and good, but those weren’t the examples that I cited; the examples that I listed use baptizo and I’m curious what you thought about them. I think perhaps you’re confusing what a word can mean with what a word must necessarily mean.

I understand. I posted the above to show that there are two separate/ similar words …
Bapto and Baptizo used in the New Testament… and neither of them indicate the idea of pouring or sprinkling. Both of which are separate Greek words.

This is some of what I found…

The word (baptizo) translated as Baptism in the New testament is
baptiðzw -

to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one’s self, bathe
to overwhelm
Not to be confused with 911, bapto. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped’ (bapto) into boiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I understand. I posted the above to show that there are two separate/ similar words …
Bapto and Baptizo used in the New Testament… and neither of them indicate the idea of pouring or sprinkling. Both of which are separate Greek words.

This is some of what I found…

The word (baptizo) translated as Baptism in the New testament is
baptiðzw -

to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one’s self, bathe
to overwhelm
Not to be confused with 911, bapto. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped’ (bapto) into boiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.

Right, but my examples were of baptizo, not bapto, which is what your post seems to be addressing.

 

[Cat_Herder]

BAPTO – STRONG’S GREEK DICTIONARY, 911[1]
baptw bapto bap’-to

1. a primary verb; to whelm, i.e. cover wholly with a fluid; in the New Testament only in a qualified or special sense, i.e. (literally) to moisten (a part of one’s person), or (by implication) to stain (as with dye):
2. –dip.

We see that there are two definitions for the root word ‘bapto’… one is to ‘cover wholly with a fluid’ and the other definition is to ‘dip’.

There are only three places in the Greek text where the word ‘bapto’ is found and in each case this word was translated into English as ‘dip’.

Luke 16:24 (KJV) And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.

John 13:26 (KJV) Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.

Revelation 19:13 (KJV) And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.

---

Thw word translated as Baptism in the New testament is
baptiðzw -

to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one’s self, bathe
to overwhelm
Not to be confused with 911, bapto. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be ‘dipped’ (bapto) into boiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.

studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=907

Strongs is not Scripture. Study guides are not Scripture. This is Scripture:

[BIBLEDRB]Ezekiel 36:25
[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[1voice]

Well, that’s sort of the point. The sources you’re pasting from seem quite insistent that baptizo absolutely always and everywhere has meant immersion. That’s quite misleading, IMO, and also I don’t think even think in concert with what you’re expressing above. Sure, there are cases in Greek where baptizo does mean that (to sink, etc.), but baptizo doesn’t NECESSARILY always mean that, even in the New Testament itself. Or, when Naaman goes into the Jordan in your example above, how exactly does he wash? We aren’t told. The point is, he washed himself with water from the Jordan–it’s the washing and the “getting wet” or even “getting pretty wet” that’s relevant, not the exact gnats-eye technique of the washing and whether every part of his body was simultaneously covered with water.

Just as another illustration, another meaning of baptizo is “to drench” (see my earlier dictionary citation). There are plenty of ways to be drenched without being fully immersed in liquid. I can tell you that it’s been raining pretty hard here and I’ve been drenched several times this week But I was (thank God) never immersed in water.

Words have a variety of meanings and nuances in different contexts; that’s just the way language works.

I have washed in rivers and lakes many times on camping trips… and have seen others do it as well … I dont remember a time when any of us didnt immerse ourselves as part of the process.

---

I understand and agree. Language is not that simple.
That is why context is so important. The context that Paul the Apostle repeatedly uses in describing Baptism is … that we are buried with Christ… the old man dies and remains dead in the grave … And the new man arises from the grave in Christ. Immersion fits that description perfectly. When something is buried … it is completely covered. that also fits one of the meanings of the word Babtizo

 

[Publisher]

Strongs is not Scripture. Study guides are not Scripture. This is Scripture:

[BIBLEDRB]Ezekiel 36:25
[/BIBLEDRB]

That’s an example of “mikvah”…this isn’t baptism…it is an example of the “mikvah” ritual washing…a JEWISH ritual washing that was the precursor of Christian baptism …the “mikvah” was not “baptism”.

By John’s time I believe the Essenes practiced baptism…and it was adopted by the church as they were influenced by the Essenes.

 

[Cat_Herder]

That’s an example of “mikvah”…this isn’t baptism…it is an example of the “mikvah” ritual washing…a JEWISH ritual washing that was the precursor of Christian baptism …the “mikvah” was not “baptism”.

By John’s time I believe the Essenes practiced baptism…and it was adopted by the church as they were influenced by the Essenes.

Temple Judaism and Catholicism are the same religion. Your division between the two is totally arbitrary.

 

[Publisher]

Temple Judaism and Catholicism are the same religion. Your division between the two is totally arbitrary.

I realize that is YOUR belief…my division isn’t arbitrary…it simply does not affirm your belief that Catholicism and Temple Judaism are the same relgion…but I do understand…that IS your belief. I doubt you’ll not find any historians other than Catholics to confirm your belief…but I wouldn’t expect anything else but your stated belief…what you did confirm however is the historical beleif that after the fall of the Temple, Christianity and “rabbinical Judaism” competed with each other as the “authentic” continuation of Judaism…historians do confirm that…it was at this time that Christianity and Judaism became truly two separate religions…up until then…Christianity was simply another sect of Judaism…and Christianity developed it’s “distinctive” beliefs from this time forward…becoming a Gentile religion and distanced itself from it’s Jewish roots.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I realize that is YOUR belief…my division isn’t arbitrary…it simply does not affirm your belief that Catholicism and Temple Judaism are the same relgion…but I do understand…that IS your belief. I doubt you’ll not find any historians other than Catholics to confirm your belief…but I wouldn’t expect anything else but your stated belief…what you did confirm however is the historical beleif that after the fall of the Temple, Christianity and “rabbinical Judaism” competed with each other as the “authentic” continuation of Judaism…historians do confirm that…it was at this time that Christianity and Judaism became truly two separate religions…up until then…Christianity was simply another sect of Judaism…and Christianity developed it’s “distinctive” beliefs from this time forward…becoming a Gentile religion and distanced itself from it’s Jewish roots.

As long as you are defining religions by their worshipers and not Who they worship, you will be wandering the wilderness in search of truth.

 

[Publisher]

As long as you are defining religions by their worshipers and not Who they worship, you will be wandering the wilderness in search of truth.

At least I’m in good company friend.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

I have washed in rivers and lakes many times on camping trips… and have seen others do it as well … I dont remember a time when any of us didnt immerse ourselves as part of the process.

---

I understand and agree. Language is not that simple.
That is why context is so important. The context that Paul the Apostle repeatedly uses in describing Baptism is … that we are buried with Christ… the old man dies and remains dead in the grave … And the new man arises from the grave in Christ. Immersion fits that description perfectly. When something is buried … it is completely covered. that also fits one of the meanings of the word Babtizo

How do we know there was even enough water in the Jordan that this was even physically possible? Again, the Bible just doesn’t say. Just because you always happen to do it, doesn’t mean that Naaman could or did.

But here’s the basic problem in your logic. You are first of all, trying to make a philological argument to support the exclusive use of one particular practice, baptism by immersion (as near as I can tell). Because the meaning of the word baptizo is flexible and doesn’t always = getting wet by immersion (baptizo = other forms and ways of “wetting”), that’s logically never, ever going to be convincing to anyone who spends any time thinking about it. The “pickle” argument you keep posting is unconvincing because the person who’s making it is extrapolating one singular usage of a word to the entire Greek language to a thousand+ years of Greek literature and speech. That’s just not valid.

Your biblical argument (Paul’s explanation of baptism in Romans 6) is a better one. Paul doesn’t use the image of burial “repeatedly” as far as I know, but nonethess, you could make the case that symbolically, immersion is a better picture or image of “being buried.” Many Catholic liturgists would probably agree with you since Baptism by immersion is arguably the normative (though not usual) pattern in the Catholic Rites—because it’s the form listed first in the Rites book.

But the question really is, how much flexibility can there be in the form of Baptism in terms of water? The historical argument for flexibility is quite strong (start at the Didache, as others have mentioned, and work forward) and you’re not going to convince anyone otherwise for whom history is an important guide to practice. Plus, theologically, your approach ends up portraying God as a sort of petty technocrat: “Nope, no baptism for you–you didn’t get quite wet enough!” And then how wet is wet enough? Where’s the cut off? (Jn. 13:9).

But basically, the difference in the views boils down to theology and views about the centrality of grace. For the vast majority of Christians (both contemporary and historical), Baptism is and has always been understood as a grace given (1Peter 3:21, or again Romans 6); it’s something God does for people— regardless of what’s going on cognitively—not a work or good deed that people do for God just because Jesus said so. If baptism is dependent on human cognitive disposition, then for people who understand Baptism as a means of grace, anyone who can’t make an profession of faith (say, someone who is developmentally disabled) can’t become part of the Body of Christ (Romans 6). For people that see Baptism as a means of grace, that’s unthinkable.

 

[Radical]

And all of your above statement has proven what? The bolded sentence related to the first converts who were adults…swallow that fact!

that may be your explanation/excuse for why the NT connection between the acts of baptism and belief are so very strong, but the fact remains that it is the connection that exists…it is “believe and be baptized” and not “be born and be baptized”

BTW: Radical whenever you have the couarge to stop dancing and stop presenting absurd rebuttals and excuses,…

hmmm…I wondered if this was in any way directed toward me:

I just want to apologize to all Orthodoxs and Protestants,if I have ever offended you or your respective faiths in any manner. It is not my goal or intent to put-down anyone’s faith or tradition you follow.

…I see that it wasn’t…no surprise there.

…let me know when you can present ONE ECF teaching the RP as heretical or usurpation against Christ.

let me know when you would like to engage in a more mature consideration of the matter…,I have entered into long and enjoyable discussions of Augustine’s view wrt the Eucharist with both Pneuma07 and Lyrikal…I would love a discussion of that quality on the matter that you raise…do you have it in yah?

 

[Radical]

But basically, the difference in the views boils down to theology and views about the centrality of grace. For the vast majority of Christians (both contemporary and historical), Baptism is and has always been understood as a grace given (1Peter 3:21, or again Romans 6); it’s something God does for people— regardless of what’s going on cognitively—not a work or good deed that people do for God just because Jesus said so. If baptism is dependent on human cognitive disposition, then for people who understand Baptism as a means of grace, anyone who can’t make an profession of faith (say, someone who is developmentally disabled) can’t become part of the Body of Christ …

this is an interesting point…but doesn’t it make God into a sort of petty technocrat: “Nope, no believer’s baptism for you?–well then, you can’t be part of my Son’s body b/c its the only way I’ll do it!” For people who see our loving God as being generous with his grace, that’s unthinkable.

 

[Cat_Herder]

that may be your explanation/excuse for why the NT connection between the acts of baptism and belief are so very strong, but the fact remains that it is the connection that exists…it is “believe and be baptized” and not “be born and be baptized”

The Apostles were directing this at adult converts. At this time there was no such thing as an infant Christian, unless you count the households that were being baptized. Besides the fact that the age of reason/cognition/accountability/whatever is nowhere in Scripture, this is the other big white elephant in the credobaptism room.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

this is an interesting point…but doesn’t it make God into a sort of petty technocrat: “Nope, no believer’s baptism for you?–well then, you can’t be part of my Son’s body b/c its the only way I’ll do it!” For people who see our loving God as being generous with his grace, that’s unthinkable.

True. And I know we will disagree, but I would see someone denied baptism, simply on the basis of cognitive ability, as a mark of radical exclusion from the community.

 

[Radical]

True. And I know we will disagree, but I would see someone denied baptism, simply on the basis of cognitive ability, as a mark of radical exclusion from the community.

…perhaps that is why me and mine tend to use the phrase “community of believers” (as opposed to simply “community”). If someone can actually request baptism, then cognitive ability must be present in that person. If that person is not making or is not capable of making the request, then it is an odd means of inclusion within the body of believers…and it is “believers” that is used to describe the body so often in the NT…and no one is labelled as “baptized” in the NT who isn’t a believer…

 

[Radical]

Besides the fact that the age of reason/cognition/accountability/whatever is nowhere in Scripture, this is the other big white elephant in the credobaptism room.

the belief of believing believers pervades the NT…there is no elephant in the room, with all the believers around the room isn’t roomy enough to have room for an elephant.