Submersion Baptism

[Atemi]

**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.**

“All” the Baptisms in Scripture were adult?

No. That is not what I said. Please read it again.

…

 

[Atemi]

.NT

 

[Atemi]

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.

I do not speak of “validity” when speaking of baptism.

The only “valid” baptisms are those recognized by the repentent soul and his Lord.

All others are of no value to anyone.

And when not a drop of water is available anywhere, this changes not a thing in the work of God with those that call on His name.

…

 

[Atemi]

**One, nowhere does Polycarp say he was baptised as an infant nor does he anywhere mention infant baptism at all. **

Let’s see if what you say is actually true.

Already done. It is true.*** One need only read what he wrote***.

Simple.

Polycarp was 86 years old when was martyred, right? (Yes, he said so.)

No, he did not say so.

And he says that he has been a believer for 86 years, right? (Yep, he does.)

Yes he does.

Hate it for ya Atemi. Wishful thinking apologetics fails you again.

I am the only one sticking with the actual record and not assumptions.

Sorry.

Two, there is no evidence of John or any Apostles baptising any infants.

See above…

Nope. Still not a single record of any of that.

Three, it is a weak assumption that Polycarp died at 86.

Really? What does the man specifically say there on the way to his death?

That he served the Lord for 86 years.

Simple.

I take him at his word.

**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).***

Riiiight…Well, as most of the faithful here at CAF know. Notre Dame is sadly lacking in orthodox scholarship of late, so that would make it suspect to me.

I am sorry if you find the historical record to be “suspect” if it disagrees with your assumptions.

I am not even arguing for this record…but just acknowledging that it exists.

…

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I do not speak of “validity” when speaking of baptism.

The only “valid” baptisms are those recognized by the repentent soul and his Lord.

All others are of no value to anyone.

And when not a drop of water is available anywhere, this changes not a thing in the work of God with those that call on His name.

…

Baptism as defined by Christ’s Church, which Christ left to administer His Sacraments. It is true that Christ can work outside of His Sacraments and supply the Grace of the Sacraments without the Sacraments, when it is impossible to receive them. A person will die within three days without any water anyway.

 

[JustaServant]

Genesis 17
1And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the LORD appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.

2And **I will make my covenant **between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.

7And I will establish my covenant between me and thee** and thy seed after thee in their generations** for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

10This is my covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you **and thy seed **after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised.

11And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you.

12And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed.

13He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.

23And Abraham took Ishmael his son, and all that were born in his house, and all that were bought with his money, every male among the** men of Abraham’s house**; and circumcised the flesh of their foreskin in the selfsame day, as God had said unto him.

27And all the men of his house, born in the house, and bought with money of the stranger, were circumcised with him.

Genesis 21:4
4And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac being eight days old, as God had commanded him.

Colossians 2
11In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ:

12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

13And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;

Acts 16:15 (King James Version)

15And when she was baptized,** and her household**, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.

1 Corinthians 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

Acts 2:

38
Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39
**For the promise is made to you and to your children **and to all those far off, whomever the Lord our God will call.”

These are just a few. I don’t have time to post more verses. Now, unless you have been infected with the theology of dispensationalism, these are understood in the terms of a Covenant. Baptism is the New Testament circumcision of the New Covenant (Jer.31). Even if you ignore the word ‘household’, I can’t see how anyone can get past Colossians.

 

[Church_Militant]

I do not speak of “validity” when speaking of baptism.

The only “valid” baptisms are those recognized by the repentent soul and his Lord

.And where exactly do you find this taught in the Word of God?

All others are of no value to anyone.

In your opinion, which doesn’t ppear to have been based upon scripture.http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/emo-epicfail.png

And when not a drop of water is available anywhere, this changes not a thing in the work of God with those that call on His name.

Really? And just precisely what was the message of the apostles on the day of Pentecost? Let’s take a look.
Acts 2:38] And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39] For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”
40] And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.”
41] So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.

 

[Church_Militant]

Already done. It is true.*** One need only read what he wrote***.

Simple.

No, he did not say so.

Yes he does.

I am the only one sticking with the actual record and not assumptions.

Sorry.

Nope. Still not a single record of any of that.

That he served the Lord for 86 years.

Simple.

I take him at his word.

I am sorry if you find the historical record to be “suspect” if it disagrees with your assumptions.

I am not even arguing for this record…but just acknowledging that it exists.

…

Yeah well that’s some of the finest twisting I’ve ever seen. You certainly do not take Polycarp at his word, you twist it to make it fit what you desperately wish it said and anyone reading this can clearly see that. It’s really kinda pitiful.

Your citation is one man’s (and a protestant at at that) opinion of an obscure fragment. And if you don’t argue for your own citation then that means you have little confidence in it and it can be discarded without concern. Why even bother? Nevermind…I guess it suits your a-C agenda.

Yet we have more than ample direct evidence from the ECF themselves and I know whom I will believe.

 

[JustaServant]

Yeah well that’s some of the finest twisting I’ve ever seen. You certainly do not take Polycarp at his word, you twist it to make it fit what you desperately wish it said and anyone reading this can clearly see that. It’s really kinda pitiful.

Polycarp is certainly a thorn in the side of those who deny infant baptism.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Baptism as defined by Christ’s Church, which Christ left to administer His Sacraments. It is true that Christ can work outside of His Sacraments and supply the Grace of the Sacraments without the Sacraments, when it is impossible to receive them. A person will die within three days without any water anyway.

I realize I left that hanging:

A person will die within three days without any water anyway, so Baptism of Desire could apply. a person desires Baptism but cannot be Baptized because of lack of water. They then die before being able to receive Baptism, from dehydration.

 

[Jolly_Joe]

James W Dale’s 4 volume work on “Baptizo” leaves no room for the arguement that baptizo equal immersion. His work was comphrehensive at the time and still stands as the single best reference.

They are still available in print, or on CD’s like the Reformation Bookshelf.

 

[Church_Militant]

Polycarp is certainly a thorn in the side of those who deny infant baptism.

Yeah, and it’s amazing how much effort some folks give to trying to convince everyone that all baptism is by immersion and cannot be given to infants when the clear implication of New Testament scripture says otherwise.

Maybe someday these folks will stop formulating their pet doctrines and then trying to jam scripture onto it to make it appear valid to the gullible.

 

[brb3]

Paul was baptized while standing up in the house of Judas. Either those houses had pools or they were sprinkled.

How do we know the specifics on Paul’s Baptism ? You say here ‘while standing up’.

Everyone knew John baptized by immersion, and Christ was baptized in similar fashion by him … setting example for us.

We say “Buried in Christ, to rise in newness of life” … this is best symbolized/actualized by immersion.

 

[ryanoneil]

How do we know the specifics on Paul’s Baptism ? You say here ‘while standing up’.

Everyone knew John baptized by immersion, and Christ was baptized in similar fashion by him … setting example for us.

We say “Buried in Christ, to rise in newness of life” … this is best symbolized/actualized by immersion.

Maybe I should have phrased it differently. If Judas did not have a pool in his house (which he “probably” didn’t), how could Paul have been immersed?

**So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, “Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the holy Spirit.” Immediately things like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. He got up and was baptized (Acts 9:17-18)

Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away, calling upon his name. (Acts 22:16)**

 

[brb3]

Maybe I should have phrased it differently. If Judas did not have a pool in his house (which he “probably” didn’t), how could Paul have been immersed?

**So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, “Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the holy Spirit.” Immediately things like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. He got up and was baptized (Acts 9:17-18)

Now, why delay? Get up and have yourself baptized and your sins washed away, calling upon his name. (Acts 22:16)**

OK … Paul knelt for his Confirmation of H.S. by annointing of priestly hands. Next he rises … and is commanded to be Baptized. They were in Damascus … surely their was a synagogue in that town with a pool. Or, a river/lake … where those Christians that Paul was traveling to harm had received their Baptisms. Ananias knew where to find the holy water …

 

[ryanoneil]

OK … Paul knelt for his Confirmation of H.S. by annointing of priestly hands. Next he rises … and is commanded to be Baptized. They were in Damascus … surely their was a synagogue in that town with a pool. Or, a river/lake … where those Christians that Paul was traveling to harm had received their Baptisms. Ananias knew where to find the holy water …

Scripture doesn’t suggest they left the house for the baptism. He is baptized and then eats right away.

Immediately things like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. He got up and was baptized, and when he had eaten, he recovered his strength. He stayed some days with the disciples in Damascus (Acts 9:18-19)

 

[ryanoneil]

Another example is the baptism of the jailer and his household (Acts 16:33). It appears the jailer took them into his house during the middle of the night, and the baptism happened there. If that is the case, what are the odds he had a large pool of water for immersion?

 

[brb3]

Yes, but remember the Ethiopian baptized by Phillip. They found a pool, pond perhaps on side on road.

Paul knew of the Baptism of John. He would insisted on the real deal too

 

[NHInsider]

I do not speak of “validity” when speaking of baptism.

The only “valid” baptisms are those recognized by the repentent soul and his Lord.

All others are of no value to anyone.

And when not a drop of water is available anywhere, this changes not a thing in the work of God with those that call on His name.

…

While realizing that the poster has been suspended (and I am not sure what that means), this point shouldn’t be overlooked. For all the heat in the discussion, the light illluminates the point, which is that Atemi and others sharing his theology do not believe in sacramental baptism - at all, by any method. They do not believe that baptism can be “valid” or “invalid” because they don’t believe it actually DOES anything, or that Jesus actually intends for it to be effective.

I must say it is amusing that someone can become so very passionate about the “right” way to do something which they do not believe to be actually effective. If one believes that baptism is ONLY symbolic, then of course it is important that its appearance supports of what it symbolizes.

Paul did use the analogy of death/burial/resurrection, and if that’s the only thing baptism does is symbolize this, then it needs to “look” like burial. But - what about all those “washing” references in Hebrews and 1 Peter? Not to mention the “sprinkling” also referenced in Hebrews? Etc. etc.

St. Thomas sorted through all these same objections in the Summa, it’s remarkable that people think they’ve figured out something new that proves the Church is wrong . . .

 

[ryanoneil]

Yes, but remember the Ethiopian baptized by Phillip. They found a pool, pond perhaps on side on road.

Paul knew of the Baptism of John. He would insisted on the real deal too

Yes Philip and the Eunuch found water. That doesn’t make pouring or sprinkling any less of a real deal. Scripture says Paul was baptized while standing up in the house of Judas (then he eats).