Was St. Paul baptized by immersion?

[Dokimas]

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

Words have original meanings. Those meanings should be understood before we can successfully discuss this issue. The meaning should rule the discussion, not tradition, IMO.

BTW, Paul’s baptism happened as it did no matter what you or I believe.

 

[Dokimas]

Whats your understanding of Pauls Baptism Dok?

Paul was baptized because it was recorded in the Bible.

I’m in this discussion, not because I care how he was baptized, but to point out the meaning of the word baptized as I’ve come to understand it. Word meanings are important.

 

[placido]

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

No, that is not what I am saying. All I am saying is that the context seems to totally exclude immersion.

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

Well, my “tradition” tells me that there are three modes of baptism – immersion, infusion and sprinkling. If immersion was not possible in Paul’s case (or in any one else’s case), we don’t have a problem and we don’t try additions to make Biblical evidence add up. For us all three modes of (Trinitarian) baptism are valid.

placido

 

[placido]

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

Dikimas, let us be honest. Sincere Christians can (and do) disagree. What is the solution you propose? Are you of the opinion God did not provide us with a solution? Did Jesus leave us orphans? Why does the Bible (Hebrews) tell us to obey and submit to our leaders if, according to you, a final authority is not necessary?

placido

 

[GaryTaylor]

Honestly I’m not sold on the immersion theory. I do believe if we are talking “river” than its a safe bet to say thats what happened.

There are also existing basins today in Israel that were used for immersion in homes. They exist its a fact in history. But was it 100% all the time fact?

Thats stretch IMO. I believe water in a clay pot and a process of sitting or standing was also very common. I believe thats what happened to Paul from reading Acts. Hey, I may well be wrong I wasn’t there and theres simply not enough data out here. I’m not sure what difference it makes if the body is immersed or not? I ceratinly don’t believe it invalidates the process. Certainly thats not believed?

Paul was a pretty rich character, certainly his devotion isn’t in question. One could only ask God for the strength Paul displayed, that wasn’t a light Cross he beared. Tough life, tough path he took, it would have killed a 1000 other men long before Paul. Not a doubt in my mind about it.

 

[placido]

Paul was baptized because it was recorded in the Bible.

I’m in this discussion, not because I care how he was baptized, but to point out the meaning of the word baptized as I’ve come to understand it. Word meanings are important.

The thread question is: “Was St. Paul baptized by immersion?”
If you don’t care how Paul was baptized, then you are in this discussion for wrong reasons.And again, if baptizo only means immersion, then how do you translate Luke 11:38? That Jesus and His disciples ate without first immersing their hands, really?

placido

 

[placido]

Words have original meanings. Those meanings should be understood before we can successfully discuss this issue. The meaning should rule the discussion, not tradition, IMO.

BTW, Paul’s baptism happened as it did no matter what you or I believe.

And how did it happen? We know he was baptized but was he immersed?
Some people may, for a good reason, refuse to consider the possibility that he was not immersed. Why? Because that would prove that baptism is not limited to immersion. In turn that would prove Catholics right.
NB: the Catholic Church does not reject immersion; it simply says immersion is not the only valid mode of baptism.

placido

 

[GaryTaylor]

Sounds good to me placido.

I’m not sure how you could go simply with immersion and then uphold that side of the debate with any degree of success?

I’m not sure why immersion has to be connected then accepted as the binding Biblical Rule with denominations either?

 

[KathleenGee]

Fundamentalists are too book oriented and not people, conditions, times and context oriented.

I was with an ecumenical Bible study group. The others had Webster English dictionaries with them. I ended up sitting between two Catholics. We didn’t have dictionaries. We listened to the readings, and without even speaking to each other, we already got a sense of the Scripture readings, and it was like we were ready now to live out the Word, while the others were thumbing through their dictionaries commenting on words of every day usage to see what more they meant in context of our studies.

Two different approaches, but same Spirit and same values in Christ.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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).

Well, it appears we are depending on more than scriptures when we go the lexicon to define God’s word. We know from the early Church fathers and the Didache, other forms of baptism was acceptable. These were men of the authoritative Church began by Christ Himself. It amazes me that we can discount what early Christians have to teach us for modern day teachers.

 

[placido]

Well, it appears we are depending on more than scriptures when we go the lexicon to define God’s word. We know from the early Church fathers and the Didache, other forms of baptism was acceptable. These were men of the authoritative Church began by Christ Himself. It amazes me that we can discount what early Christians have to teach us for modern day teachers.

That is exactly what I tried to tell him, but you put it better.

placido

 

[Dokimas]

Dikimas, let us be honest. Sincere Christians can (and do) disagree. What is the solution you propose? Are you of the opinion God did not provide us with a solution? Did Jesus leave us orphans? Why does the Bible (Hebrews) tell us to obey and submit to our leaders if, according to you, a final authority is not necessary?

placido

Final authority is necessary. The question is who or what is the final authority? A follow up question is do we have the capability to understand and follow it perfectly this side of Heaven?

 

[Dokimas]

And how did it happen? We know he was baptized but was he immersed?
Some people may, for a good reason, refuse to consider the possibility that he was not immersed. Why? Because that would prove that baptism is not limited to immersion. In turn that would prove Catholics right.
NB: the Catholic Church does not reject immersion; it simply says immersion is not the only valid mode of baptism.

placido

Paul was baptized as he was baptized. How: I don’t know. That wasn’t my point. I must do a better job conveying my point. Sorry.

We have the Bible. We have some understanding of the words used. Words have meanings. To understand, we need to apply meanings, don’t we?

 

[Dokimas]

Well, it appears we are depending on more than scriptures when we go the lexicon to define God’s word. We know from the early Church fathers and the Didache, other forms of baptism was acceptable. These were men of the authoritative Church began by Christ Himself. It amazes me that we can discount what early Christians have to teach us for modern day teachers.

Come now… how do we know what a Greek word means without a lexicon. As you know, the Bible wasn’t written in English.

Example of why lexicons are important. There are 4 Greek words for love. Each have a different meaning.

 

[campeador]

Come now… how do we know what a Greek word means without a lexicon. As you know, the Bible wasn’t written in English.

Example of why lexicons are important. There are 4 Greek words for love. Each have a different meaning.

Dokimas, after saying this how can you possibly say that baptizo only means immersion? Even your version of the lexicon has other meanings for the word (your post #33).

And what of The Didache of the Twelve Apostles? The author/authors were fluent Greek writers. They knew the meaning of the word baptizo. Yet this is what is written:

Chap. VII.

1. Now concerning baptism, baptize thus: Having first taught all these things, baptize ye into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water.

2.  And if thou hast not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm (water).

3. But if thou hast neither, pour [water] thrice upon the head in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

4.  But before Baptism let the baptizer and the baptized fast, and any others who can; but thou shalt command the baptized to fast for one or two days before.

Obviously Baptism was considered valid without total immersion.

 

[placido]

Final authority is necessary. The question is who or what is the final authority? A follow up question is do we have the capability to understand and follow it perfectly this side of Heaven?

No, you are asking wrong questions. The right questions should be:

1. Did Jesus send His apostles? YES!
2. Did He give them His authority? YES!
3. Is Jesus’ authority final? YES!
4. Is Jesus a powerless bystander who can not even make sure that believers are capable of understanding and following the authority He established? NO!

placido

 

[placido]

Paul was baptized as he was baptized. How: I don’t know. That wasn’t my point. I must do a better job conveying my point. Sorry.

We have the Bible. We have some understanding of the words used. Words have meanings. To understand, we need to apply meanings, don’t we?

Yes, but … what is the point you are trying to make?

placido

 

[placido]

Come now… how do we know what a Greek word means without a lexicon. As you know, the Bible wasn’t written in English.

Example of why lexicons are important. There are 4 Greek words for love. Each have a different meaning.

This is very interesting, coming as it does from people who insist that ordinary people should be allowed to read the Bible for themselves.
Now we are told the only way to understand the Bible is by using lexicons … but how many believers have access to lexicons? And why was the Bible translated into English if all the translations are so faulty, so much so that we have now to resort to lexicons?
Are you not, inadvertently, saying the catholic Church was right when it prohibited unauthorized translations (that is, in fact, what you are saying: “translations are no reliable, rather use a lexicon”).

placido

 

[Dokimas]

Dokimas, after saying this how can you possibly say that baptizo only means immersion? Even your version of the lexicon has other meanings for the word (your post #33).

And what of The Didache of the Twelve Apostles? The author/authors were fluent Greek writers. They knew the meaning of the word baptizo. Yet this is what is written:

Obviously Baptism was considered valid without total immersion.

I submit to your opinion. Have a nice night.

 

[Dokimas]

No, you are asking wrong questions. The right questions should be:

1. Did Jesus send His apostles? YES!
2. Did He give them His authority? YES!
3. Is Jesus’ authority final? YES!
4. Is Jesus a powerless bystander who can not even make sure that believers are capable of understanding and following the authority He established? NO!

placido

I like those questions and I believe you got them 100% correct.

Now to my questions which are valid.