Was St. Paul baptized by immersion?

[Nine_Two]

I am inclined to believe water was sprinkled on him 3 times…in regards to the times he lived in…especially since he already had such a profound experience…but then again…because of his past sins…he may have wanted full immersion…

Roll the dice…think tradition of the times wins for me.

Thanks for the references!

The tradition of the time was immersion.

 

[campeador]

He was baptized; the word 'baptized is as defined as I posted; yes he was immersed, IMO.

Did you completely miss my post (#7)?

 

[campeador]

The tradition of the time was immersion.

I’d love to see your references.

 

[jmcrae]

People did bathe in those days, and the context seems to indicate Judas was a fairly well known individual. Additionally Damascus has quite a few little streams running through or near the Old City. No timeline is given.

I don’t think Acts 9 can be used to dismiss the standard methodology.

Nor does it specifically confirm it. The Didache indicates that immersion in flowing water was the preferred method - regardless of whether he was baptized by immersion in a bathtub, or by pouring in the sink, either the water was not flowing, or he was not immersed.

But the Didache also allows for baptism by pouring, so this, being the second choice, could well be what Paul experienced.

Immersion in still water is the third choice, so of course it is also a possibility.

 

[Nine_Two]

Nor does it specifically confirm it. The Didache indicates that immersion in flowing water was the preferred method - regardless of whether he was baptized by immersion in a bathtub, or by pouring in the sink, either the water was not flowing, or he was not immersed.

But the Didache also allows for baptism by pouring, so this, being the second choice, could well be what Paul experienced.

Immersion in still water is the third choice, so of course it is also a possibility.

I quite agree, however your posts led me to believe you thought pouring to be the most likely because houses didn’t have running water, I was simply pointing out that there was running water nearby.

I would argue that most likely he was baptized according to the convention of immersion, however there is the possibility that an alternate method such as pouring was used.

 

[flyonthewall]

There is also the imagery of the language used in Romans 6

4Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in enewness of life.

5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

and Colossians 2

12Buried 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.

 

[placido]

Just for information: The VAST majority of protestants are going to disagree with this pastor.

I know that! The majority of protestants would say the Full Gospel pastor is wrong and the Full Gospel pastor would say thy are wrong. Can you propose a solution to that?

It’s true that Acts doesn’t specifically speak about the nature of the Baptism here. However, the assumption that is made by Baptists is that since John the Baptist baptized Jesus using full immersion then Saul would have been baptized the same way.

You seem to believe in “Sola Scriptura PLUS” … yes, what is written PLUS assumptions. To start with, the Bible nowhere says Jesus was immersed.

placido

 

[placido]

There is no indication whether or not Paul was baptized by water…

There is. It is stated clearly he was baptized by Ananias in Judas’ house.

placido

 

[placido]

The word baptism means immersion

If you limit the word baptism to means ONLY immersion you kick-start a troublesome journey through the Bible. The word baptism means “immersion” sometimes, not always.

placido

 

[placido]

He was baptized; the word 'baptized is as defined as I posted; yes he was immersed, IMO.

One error leads to another.
The first error is limiting the word baptism to mean ONLY immersion;
The second error is to assume that whoever was baptized must have been immersed because that is the only meaning of baptism.

placido

 

[placido]

People did bathe in those days, and the context seems to indicate Judas was a fairly well known individual. Additionally Damascus has quite a few little streams running through or near the Old City. No timeline is given.

After three days without eating, Paul was weak. He was baptized before he was given food later to eat and and regain his strength. One has to abandon what is written (the Protestant standard) and resort to assumptions to be able to see Paul being immersed.

I don’t think Acts 9 can be used to dismiss the standard methodology.

No one is using Acts 9 to dismiss any thing, rather to demonstrate that immersion is not the only valid method of baptism like the Full Gospel pastor is claiming.

placido

 

[placido]

The tradition of the time was immersion.

And you get your information from tradition, not from the Bible.

placido

 

[Dokimas]

But scriptures do not clearly state that he was baptized by immersion. To accept it as such would be going by tradition, wouldn’t it?

Not if the word baptize in the Greek means what the lexicon says it means. Let me post it again…

907 βαπτιζω baptizo bap-tid’-zo

from a derivative of 911; TDNT-1:529,92; verb

AV-baptize (76), wash 2, baptist 1, baptized + 2258 1; 80

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
   ++++
   Not to be confused with 911, bapto. The clearest example that shows
   the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet andphysician 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) intoboiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizo) in the vinegarsolution. 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.
   When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. #Mr 16:16. ‘He that believes and is baptised shall be saved’. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle!
   (Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989).

 

[Dokimas]

Did you completely miss my post (#7)?

I did miss it. Your info is definitely different than mine.

Here’s what Strong’s lexicon says about baptizo…

1. βαπτιζω baptizo bap-tid’-zo; from a derivative of 911; to immerse, submerge; **to make overwhelmed **(i.e. fully wet); used only (in the N.T.) of ceremonial ablution, especially (technically) of the ordinance of Christian baptism:— Baptist, baptize, wash.

 

[Dokimas]

One error leads to another.
The first error is limiting the word baptism to mean ONLY immersion;
The second error is to assume that whoever was baptized must have been immersed because that is the only meaning of baptism.

placido

Thank you for pointing out my possible error. I’m sure you’re just as open to the possibility that your understanding is in error too, correct?

 

[Dokimas]

After three days without eating, Paul was weak. He was baptized before he was given food later to eat and and regain his strength. One has to abandon what is written (the Protestant standard) and resort to assumptions to be able to see Paul being immersed.

No one is using Acts 9 to dismiss any thing, rather to demonstrate that immersion is not the only valid method of baptism like the Full Gospel pastor is claiming.

placido

Are you saying that the context tells us that Paul was sprinkled when he was baptized?

If not, what does your tradition tell you about how Paul was baptized?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Are you saying that the context tells us that Paul was sprinkled when he was baptized?

If not, what does your tradition tell you about how Paul was baptized?

Whats your understanding of Pauls Baptism Dok?

 

[placido]

Thank you for pointing out my possible error. I’m sure you’re just as open to the possibility that your understanding is in error too, correct?

Yes, I am open to that possibility. But I am also open for the possible solution of a situation where two sincere Christians disagree on interpretation. We take our disagreement to the Church to provide us with a solution. Are you willing to go down that road?

placido

 

[placido]

Not if the word baptize in the Greek means what the lexicon says it means. Let me post it again…

907 βαπτιζω baptizo bap-tid’-zo

from a derivative of 911; TDNT-1:529,92; verb

AV-baptize (76), wash 2, baptist 1, baptized + 2258 1; 80

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
   ++++
   Not to be confused with 911, bapto. The clearest example that shows
   the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet andphysician 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) intoboiling water and then ‘baptised’ (baptizo) in the vinegarsolution. 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.
   When used in the New Testament, this word more often refers to our union and identification with Christ than to our water baptism. e.g. #Mr 16:16. ‘He that believes and is baptised shall be saved’. Christ is saying that mere intellectual assent is not enough. There must be a union with him, a real change, like the vegetable to the pickle!
   (Bible Study Magazine, James Montgomery Boice, May 1989).

I see this whole thing of “lexicons” as a useful aid, but not as the final solution. The Church’s understanding of baptism existed before someone came up with the idea of a lexicon. And as you can see, a lexicon does not solve the problem. People will simply select one meaning that suits them, while ignoring the rest.

placido

 

[Dokimas]

Yes, I am open to that possibility. But I am also open for the possible solution of a situation where two sincere Christians disagree on interpretation. We take our disagreement to the Church to provide us with a solution. Are you willing to go down that road?

placido

So you’re not open to anything but your final authority. Fair enough.