N
- Status
S
SonofMonica
Guest
Nonsense. Baptizo can mean “cleansing” or “ritual washing,” in addition to “immersion.” Go read Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:3-4 in Greek. Do you really think the Catholic Church has ignored the meaning of baptizo for 2000 years?
Regarding practice, the entire record of the early Church—as shown in the New Testament, in other writings, in art, in monuments, in fonts—indicates the mode of baptism was not restricted to immersion, but very, very frequently included baptism by pouring–even when in a river, you will see art of someone pouring water from the river over the person’s head. Do a little research beyond the fact that someone told you “baptism means immersion.” Go on, don’t be afraid.
Regarding the modes of baptism referenced in the Didache, there is nothing to be proved from it, except that pouring is valid. The reason that it was considered the third preference, at the time, was that immersion was considered the fullest sign of the sacrament, insofar as it symbolized (and does symbolize) burial and resurrection with Christ. However, regardless of how symbolic it may be, it is only a preference–not a doctrine, requirement or dogma. The grace conferred by the sacrament is unaffected by using pouring, though the outward sign may be perceptibly different. If this were not so, then pouring would not be an option in the Didache.
In any event, the Didache is a Catholic document, talking about Catholic sacraments, and evidencing a Catholic understanding of baptism. Why are you using it to try to disprove what the Catholic Church clearly teaches and always has taught?
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
Actually Baptism in either it’s Greek or Hebrew understanding does not explicitly mean immersion, but simply generally “washing” or ritually purifying with water. Early Baptisms also included many children and infant Baptisms, since it was the custom for the whole family, including all infants and children to become Christians by Baptism when converting.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Z
zz912
Guest
I guess this nondem pastor doesn’t realize the delicious irony of him arguing about being VERY specific in following the directions of Christ and the early christians regarding baptism. I guess in all the other areas where he refuses to follow instruction because they are too catholic! You want to get it completely right with baptism, but ignore other instructions like Eucharist, confession, obeying bishops, etc etc…
A
Atemi
Guest
No.
Baptizo means to immerse or submerge.
That is what the word actually means.
The only question that remains is the context: what exactly is being immersed?
Done that many times. Nothing there to contradict what I said.
Sorry, but I do not subscribe to the claim that your denomination existed 2000 years ago. The Traditionalists say the same, as do the Old Catholics, and then there are the Eastern Orthodox, etc., etc…
Can you please show us where in the NT anyone is recorded as being baptised by merely pouring on their head?
No one “told” me that. That is what the word means.
You are confusing what the word actually means with how it is used.
What can be proved is that pouring was the last alternative if no other method was possible (according to the Didache, of course).
Now many today make their primary practice that which was the last alternative if no other option was possible.
Who made the exception the rule is the question.
The Didache mentions nothing about grace being “conferred” by this ritual as you say above, so you cannot cite it as support.
I know that is the Catholic claim…even though the Didache does not support those claims in the slightest.
One, full immersion in running water is the primary means of baptism. The RCC today says this is false.
Two, credo baptism is the instructed method with no mention of paedo baptism or room afforded to such an idea.
Three, no mention of any “regeneration,” forgiveness of “Original sin,” or grace being “conferred.”
So saying this is written by “Catholics” is easy. The facts show otherwise.
…
A
Atemi
Guest
That is the claim, sure. Claims are always easy.
Then we have the fact that of all the baptisms mentioned in Scripture, not one infant baptism is recorded…nevermind not even being taught or commanded.
…
R
Rolltide
Guest
Yes, but Catholics DO recognize that the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are true “Churches”. Catholics believe that in order to be considered a “Church”, one must have maintained Apostolic Succession, have a valid Eucharist (in other words, believe in the Real Presence), and maintain all seven sacraments. Since both of those denominations (and most groups like the SSPX) maintain these, then they are only “schismatic”, not heretical, in the eyes of the Catholic Church. Their doctrine is still technically sound, although their leadership may be sinning through disobedience. We recognize that ALL of these Churches are part of the one Catholic (universal) Church that was around 2000 years ago, and that we are still united in our major traditions. In Protestant groups, which the Catholic Church would technically call “ecclesiastical communities”, one or more of these three requirements has been lost, so they cannot be considered true “churches” by the strict Catholic definition of the word.
When do you believe that the Catholic Church began? I suppose you can make an argument for calling the original denomination from 2000 years ago “The Holy Orthodox and Catholic Church” together, and that it remained so until the Great Schism…
A
Atemi
Guest
One, nowhere does Polycarp say he was baptised as an infant nor does he anywhere mention infant baptism at all.
Two, there is no evidence of John or any Apostles baptising any infants.
Three, it is a weak assumption that Polycarp died at 86.
Three, there is historical evidence that Polycarp died in his hundreds.
“Polycarp…He was… old man, being one hundred and f[our] of age. He continued to walk *n the canons which he had learned from his youth from John the a[p]ostle.”
(Weidman, Frederick W. Polycarp and John: The Harris Fragments and Their Challenge to Literary Traditions. University of Notre Dame Press, Notre Dame (IL), 1999, pp. 43,44).
…*
R
Rolltide
Guest
And herein lies one of the major differences between Catholics and Protestants. A Protestant will look at a tradition and say, “Unless this is specifically stated as ok by the Bible, it’s best not to do it.” A Catholic (or Orthodox) will look at a tradition and say, “As long as this tradition dates to the early church, and as long as it does not specifically contradict the Bible, then it’s ok to use.”
A
Atemi
Guest
That is untrue as we all know.
There are many traditions Protestants embrace that are not specifically stated is OK in the Bible.
Let’s try to keep this on baptism, however, as that is the thread topic.
…
R
Rolltide
Guest
Ok. Well, as I answered before, the reason that submersion baptisms generally trailed off in the Catholic Church was due to the pollution of rivers in the major cities. In places like London, Rome, Venice, and Paris, it would be hard to find any decent body of water for a baptism. For that matter, I doubt that anyone would be rushing to get baptized in a canal in Venice today! Pouring was clearly allowed in the early church, and so this was adopted as a practical measure. Secondly, there were modesty issues. It was difficult to fully immerse women (and men) and maintain modesty, although efforts WERE made by the Catholic Church to try, certainly up through the era of separate Baptistery buildings, which flourished until the Renaissance. For a beautiful example of a full immersion Catholic Baptism pool, one need look no further than the Cathedral of Pisa, which is more famous for the Leaning Tower. The important thing is that the Didache ALLOWS for three different versions of baptism, but if the first forms are difficult to carry out or are impractical, there is nothing inherently wrong with pouring in the slightest.
Here’s the Pisa Baptistery, btw…
http://www.catherinecollege.net/moodle/file.php/24/Baptism_Images/Baptism_31.jpg
and the interior, with the full immersion pool.
http://www.shafe.co.uk/crystal/images/lshafe/Pisa_Baptistery_interior.jpg
Here’s the Pisa Baptistery, btw…
http://www.catherinecollege.net/moodle/file.php/24/Baptism_Images/Baptism_31.jpg
and the interior, with the full immersion pool.
http://www.shafe.co.uk/crystal/images/lshafe/Pisa_Baptistery_interior.jpg
A
Atemi
Guest
Do a study on what a “mikvah” is. Immersion rites were nothing new in the Apostolic era.
There was no such issue in reality.
This also is a non-issue. The Apostles had absolutely no problem here…and they baptised by the thousands.
The Didache mentions nothing about something being “impractical.” It does not merely offer three options for the reader to take their pick.
No.
The Didache is clear that baptism is by IMMERSION.
Only if that is not possible, is baptism to be done by pouring as the very last resort. Merely not wanting to immerse or not trying to immerse does not count.
We must accurately represent such works if we are going to talk about them.
…
R
Rolltide
Guest
I’m a history professor. I’m well aware of what a mikvah is. In fact, didn’t they just recently find part of one that may have been associated with the Temple of Solomon?
The issue is with the water supply itself. After the collapse of the Roman Empire, most aqueducts (although certainly not all) ceased to function in Western Europe. This, in fact, is why many of the rivers became filled with sewage. It became increasingly difficult to supply water to large pools for baptisms, although in some places, like Pisa, it was certainly possible. It’s also why immersion remained more common in the East, in the Byzantine Empire where aqueducts continued to function.
This takes us to the interesting debate over the function of deaconesses. Catholic scholarship surmises that their original function was to protect modesty while performing baptisms. With the collapse of the Roman Empire and the switch to primarily the pouring method, they no longer became necessary.
So how can the non-immersion pouring method mentioned by the Didache, which you suggest is a “last resort”, be valid? There’s no immersion there, and yet there it is, as an option…
Agreed, we must accurately represent this. There is no suggestion of the urgency of the three methods in the document. It says “Do this, and if you can’t, do this, and if you can’t, do this.” It does not NECESSARILY say, “Do this, and if there is NO HUMANLY WAY POSSIBLE, do this, and if you can’t, as an ABSOLUTE LAST RESORT, do this”, although you could read it that way. You could just as easily interpret to say, "Do this, and if it can’t REASONABLY be done, do this, and if THAT can’t REASONABLY be done, then this method is fine also.
Read the actual passage again:
7:1 But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water;
7:2 but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water;
7:3 but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
The question is, what does “if thou hast not” mean in this context? Does it mean that one should make every CONCEIVABLE effort to use the method? Or, does it simply mean that if it is not REASONABLE to do so, one doesn’t need to go through extraordinary efforts to try and perform the method, and one can substitute the following options?
C
Church_Militant
Guest
does Polycarp say he was baptised as an infant nor does he anywhere mention infant baptism at all.http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/sSig_yeahright.gif
Let’s see if what you say is actually true.
Polycarp was 86 years old when was martyred, right? (Yes, he said so.)
And he says that he has been a believer for 86 years, right? (Yep, he does.)
Gee…lemme see here…Since baptism is the initial rite of initiation for Christians, then that means that he was baptized at the beginning of his 86 years, therefore, the only.
There are even some who say that he was baptized by St. John himself, but regardless this man was a Bishop of the church at Smyrna, so he wouldn’t be likely to be wrong.
Hate it for ya Atemi. Wishful thinking apologetics fails you again. http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/emo-epicfail.png
of John or any Apostles baptising any infants.See above…
at 86.Really? What does the man specifically say there on the way to his death?
that Polycarp died in his hundreds. Therefore the only possible way that could have happened is if he was infant baptized.
J
JustaServant
Guest
One of the earliest Church Councils (Carthage in 252) debated whether to wait 8 days before baptizing.
The Church certainly didn’t expect people to wait until some fuzzy “age of reason” to be baptized, in part because it has always taught the regenerative nature of Baptism, the reality of original sin, and the necessity of Baptism as the normative means of entering into the New Covenant, and it has never out and out taught that this was to be witheld from infants.
If infant Baptism is a a later innovation, where is the historical proof? While I was still Baptist I searched long and hard through early church records to find some sort of ‘start date’, where I could point and say “That’s when it started.” I was unable to.
So, if infant Baptism was an innovation, where is the historical proof? Where is the opposition to such an ‘innovation’? If it was not taught by the Apostles, why (using thier logic) why was it accepted so readily?
The Church certainly didn’t expect people to wait until some fuzzy “age of reason” to be baptized, in part because it has always taught the regenerative nature of Baptism, the reality of original sin, and the necessity of Baptism as the normative means of entering into the New Covenant, and it has never out and out taught that this was to be witheld from infants.
If infant Baptism is a a later innovation, where is the historical proof? While I was still Baptist I searched long and hard through early church records to find some sort of ‘start date’, where I could point and say “That’s when it started.” I was unable to.
So, if infant Baptism was an innovation, where is the historical proof? Where is the opposition to such an ‘innovation’? If it was not taught by the Apostles, why (using thier logic) why was it accepted so readily?
J
JustaServant
Guest
scripturecatholic.com/baptism.html#baptism-IV
Pouring and Sprinkling versus Immersion
Ezek. 36:25 - Ezekiel prophesies that God “will ‘sprinkle’ clean water on you and you shall be clean.” The word for “sprinkle” is “rhaino” which means what it says, sprinkle (not immersion). (�Kai rhaino eph hymas hydor katharon.�)
2 Kings 5:14 - Namaan went down and dipped himself in the Jordan. The Greek word for “dipped” is “baptizo.” Here, baptizo means immersion. But many Protestant churches argue that “baptizo” and related tenses of the Greek word always mean immersion, and therefore the Catholic baptisms of pouring or sprinkling water over the head are invalid. The Scriptures disprove their claim.
Num. 19:18 � here, the verbs for dipping (�baptisantes�) and sprinkled (�bapsei�) refers to affusion (pouring) and sprinkling (aspersion), not immersion.
Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16 -John the Baptist prophesied that Jesus will baptize (“baptisei”) with the Holy Spirit and fire. In this case, “baptisei” refers to a “pouring” out over the head. This is confirmed by Matt. 3:16 where the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus’ head like a dove and Acts 2:3-4 where the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary and the apostles’ heads in the form of tongues of fire. In each case, in fulfilling John the Baptist’s prophecy, the Lord baptized (“baptizo”) in the form of pouring out His Spirit upon the head, not immersing the person.
Matt. 20:22-23; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50 - Jesus also talks about His baptism (from “baptizo”) of blood, which was shed and sprinkled in His passion. But this baptism does not (and cannot) mean immersion.
Mark 7:3 - the Pharisees do not eat unless they wash (“baptizo” ) their hands. This demonstrates that “baptizo” does not always mean immersion. It can mean pouring water over something (in this case, over their hands).
Mark 7:4 - we see that the Jews washed (“bapto” from baptizo) cups, pitchers and vessels, but this does not mean that they actually immersed these items. Also, some manuscripts say the Jews also washed (bapto) couches, yet they did not immerse the couches, they only sprinkled them.
Luke 11:38 - Jesus had not washed (“ebaptisthe”) His hands before dinner. Here, the derivative of “baptizo” just means washing up, not immersing.
Acts 2:41 - at Peter’s first sermon, 3,000 were baptized. There is archeological proof that immersion would have been impossible in this area. Instead, these 3,000 people had to be sprinkled in water baptism.
Acts 8:38 - because the verse says they “went down into the water,” many Protestants say this is proof that baptism must be done by immersion. But the verb to describe Phillip and the eunuch going down into the water is the same verb (“katabaino”) used in Acts 8:26 to describe the angel’s instruction to Phillip to stop his chariot and go down to Gaza. The word has nothing to do with immersing oneself in water.
Acts 8:39 - because the verse says “they came up out of the water,” many Protestants also use this verse to prove that baptism must be done by immersion. However, the Greek word for “coming up out of the water” is “anebesan” which is plural. The verse is describing that both Phillip and the eunuch ascended out of the water, but does not prove that they were both immersed in the water. In fact, Phillip could not have baptized the eunuch if Phillip was also immersed. Finally, even if this was a baptism by immersion, the verse does not say that baptism by immersion is the only way to baptize.
Acts 9:18; 22:16 - Paul is baptized while standing up in the house of Judas. There is no hot tub or swimming pool for immersion. This demonstrates that Paul was sprinkled.
Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized in the house of Cornelius, even though hot tubs and swimming pools were not part of homes. Those in the house had to be sprinkled.
Acts 16:33 - the baptism of the jailer and his household appears to be in the house, so immersion is not possible.
Acts 2:17,18,33 - the pouring of water is like the “pouring” out of the Holy Spirit. Pouring is also called “infusion” (of grace).
1 Cor. 10:2 - Paul says that the Israelites were baptized (“baptizo”) in the cloud and in the sea. But they could not have been immersed because Exodus 14:22 and 15:9 say that they went dry shod. Thus, “baptizo” does not mean immersed in these verses.
Eph. 4:5 - there is only one baptism, just as there is only one Lord and one faith. Once a person is validly baptized by water and the Spirit in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit with the intention of the Church (whether by pouring or immersion), there is no longer a need to rebaptize the person.
Titus 3:6 � the �washing of regeneration� (baptism) is �poured out� upon us. This �pouring out� generally refers to the pouring of baptismal waters over the head of the newly baptized.
Heb. 6:2 � on the doctrine of baptisms (the word used is �baptismos�) which generally referred to pouring and not immersion.
Heb. 10:22 � the author writes, �with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience.� This �sprinkling� of baptism refers to aspersion, not immersion. The text also parallels 1 Peter 3:21, which expressly mentions baptism and its ability to, like Heb. 10:22, purify the conscience (the interior disposition of a person).
Isaiah 44:3 - the Lord “pours” water on the thirsty land and “pours” His Spirit upon our descendants. The Lord is �pouring,� not �immersing.�
2 Thess. 2:15 - hold fast to the tradition of the Church, whether oral or written. Since the time of Christ, baptisms have been done by pouring or sprinkling.
Pouring and Sprinkling versus Immersion
Ezek. 36:25 - Ezekiel prophesies that God “will ‘sprinkle’ clean water on you and you shall be clean.” The word for “sprinkle” is “rhaino” which means what it says, sprinkle (not immersion). (�Kai rhaino eph hymas hydor katharon.�)
2 Kings 5:14 - Namaan went down and dipped himself in the Jordan. The Greek word for “dipped” is “baptizo.” Here, baptizo means immersion. But many Protestant churches argue that “baptizo” and related tenses of the Greek word always mean immersion, and therefore the Catholic baptisms of pouring or sprinkling water over the head are invalid. The Scriptures disprove their claim.
Num. 19:18 � here, the verbs for dipping (�baptisantes�) and sprinkled (�bapsei�) refers to affusion (pouring) and sprinkling (aspersion), not immersion.
Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16 -John the Baptist prophesied that Jesus will baptize (“baptisei”) with the Holy Spirit and fire. In this case, “baptisei” refers to a “pouring” out over the head. This is confirmed by Matt. 3:16 where the Holy Spirit descends upon Jesus’ head like a dove and Acts 2:3-4 where the Holy Spirit descended upon Mary and the apostles’ heads in the form of tongues of fire. In each case, in fulfilling John the Baptist’s prophecy, the Lord baptized (“baptizo”) in the form of pouring out His Spirit upon the head, not immersing the person.
Matt. 20:22-23; Mark 10:38-39; Luke 12:50 - Jesus also talks about His baptism (from “baptizo”) of blood, which was shed and sprinkled in His passion. But this baptism does not (and cannot) mean immersion.
Mark 7:3 - the Pharisees do not eat unless they wash (“baptizo” ) their hands. This demonstrates that “baptizo” does not always mean immersion. It can mean pouring water over something (in this case, over their hands).
Mark 7:4 - we see that the Jews washed (“bapto” from baptizo) cups, pitchers and vessels, but this does not mean that they actually immersed these items. Also, some manuscripts say the Jews also washed (bapto) couches, yet they did not immerse the couches, they only sprinkled them.
Luke 11:38 - Jesus had not washed (“ebaptisthe”) His hands before dinner. Here, the derivative of “baptizo” just means washing up, not immersing.
Acts 2:41 - at Peter’s first sermon, 3,000 were baptized. There is archeological proof that immersion would have been impossible in this area. Instead, these 3,000 people had to be sprinkled in water baptism.
Acts 8:38 - because the verse says they “went down into the water,” many Protestants say this is proof that baptism must be done by immersion. But the verb to describe Phillip and the eunuch going down into the water is the same verb (“katabaino”) used in Acts 8:26 to describe the angel’s instruction to Phillip to stop his chariot and go down to Gaza. The word has nothing to do with immersing oneself in water.
Acts 8:39 - because the verse says “they came up out of the water,” many Protestants also use this verse to prove that baptism must be done by immersion. However, the Greek word for “coming up out of the water” is “anebesan” which is plural. The verse is describing that both Phillip and the eunuch ascended out of the water, but does not prove that they were both immersed in the water. In fact, Phillip could not have baptized the eunuch if Phillip was also immersed. Finally, even if this was a baptism by immersion, the verse does not say that baptism by immersion is the only way to baptize.
Acts 9:18; 22:16 - Paul is baptized while standing up in the house of Judas. There is no hot tub or swimming pool for immersion. This demonstrates that Paul was sprinkled.
Acts 10:47-48 - Peter baptized in the house of Cornelius, even though hot tubs and swimming pools were not part of homes. Those in the house had to be sprinkled.
Acts 16:33 - the baptism of the jailer and his household appears to be in the house, so immersion is not possible.
Acts 2:17,18,33 - the pouring of water is like the “pouring” out of the Holy Spirit. Pouring is also called “infusion” (of grace).
1 Cor. 10:2 - Paul says that the Israelites were baptized (“baptizo”) in the cloud and in the sea. But they could not have been immersed because Exodus 14:22 and 15:9 say that they went dry shod. Thus, “baptizo” does not mean immersed in these verses.
Eph. 4:5 - there is only one baptism, just as there is only one Lord and one faith. Once a person is validly baptized by water and the Spirit in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit with the intention of the Church (whether by pouring or immersion), there is no longer a need to rebaptize the person.
Titus 3:6 � the �washing of regeneration� (baptism) is �poured out� upon us. This �pouring out� generally refers to the pouring of baptismal waters over the head of the newly baptized.
Heb. 6:2 � on the doctrine of baptisms (the word used is �baptismos�) which generally referred to pouring and not immersion.
Heb. 10:22 � the author writes, �with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience.� This �sprinkling� of baptism refers to aspersion, not immersion. The text also parallels 1 Peter 3:21, which expressly mentions baptism and its ability to, like Heb. 10:22, purify the conscience (the interior disposition of a person).
Isaiah 44:3 - the Lord “pours” water on the thirsty land and “pours” His Spirit upon our descendants. The Lord is �pouring,� not �immersing.�
2 Thess. 2:15 - hold fast to the tradition of the Church, whether oral or written. Since the time of Christ, baptisms have been done by pouring or sprinkling.
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
“All” the Baptisms in Scripture were adult?
Acts 16:15
Acts 16:33
1 Cor 1:16
Col 2:11-12 Baptism replaced circumcision, infants were circumcised on the eighth day after birth.
B
Br.Rich_SFO
Guest
So we agree the Baptism by immersions is NOT required for validity and that Baptism by either immersion, pouring or sprinkling is acceptable. So when no “pool” is available (immersions would not be possible), pouring is just as valid and effective. Also no citation from Scripture requires immersion for Baptism.
R
ryanoneil
Guest
Acts 9:18; 10:47-48; 22:16
- Status