D
Dokimas
Guest
Looks like there’s no discussion possible here. Again I yield to your opinion.
- Status
J
jmcrae
Guest
Not likely deep enough for full immersion, though - keeping in mind that it was a desert area. Even the Jordan River is only about waist-deep in the present day - I don’t know how deep it was in the times of Christ.
P
placido
Guest
O, okay … the answers to your “valid” questions are:
- Jesus is our the final authority – and He delegated this final authority to the Church (that is why when the Church decided on the number of inspired books, you recognize that as FINAL).
- Yes, we do have the capability to understand and follow it perfectly because Jesus IS NOT a powerless bystander who can not even make sure that believers are capable of understanding and following the authority He established.
J
jmcrae
Guest
It was written by the same people who wrote or inspired the Didache, however - so the Didache’s definition of Baptism can be assumed to be the one being used in the Bible.
I think the Didache was also written in Greek, so if “Baptism” means “immerse” then what kind of sense does it make to say, “You can immerse by immersion in running water, or you can immerse by pouring water over the head three times, or you can immerse by immersion in still water.”
N
Nine_Two
Guest
The already quoted Didache. Did you not read the first page?I’d love to see your references.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
As I admitted, it can also mean dip.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
First off, you’re assuming. In fact your whole argument is based on an assumption that Paul departed from the norm. Second off your ad hominem is misdirected. I’m not a Protestant. My whole argument has been based on Tradition. As a Catholic I would expect you to understand this.
Acts 9 says nothing of the sort. It says nothing about how to baptize or what ways are valid. It is quite a work of exegesis to make it do so.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Yes, I’m not a Protestant.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Acts was pretty clear that St. Paul was baptized by Ananias. It just didn’t say how.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
No you didn’t. What you tried to claim was that Paul most certainly was not baptized by immersion and that it was not the standard of the time.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Well the Jordan has been lowered by daming of tributaries by both Israel and Jordon, it was apparently once much greater.
I’ve never seen baptizm with anything more than waist deep water, so that shouldn’t be a big problem. As I tried to indicate, it sounds like Judah was wealthy, even if there weren’t good rivers it could have been done in a pool. As the didache says, pouring is the third option if the other two are not available, and I’d guess that even if the first wasn’t, the second would have been.
D
Dokimas
Guest
Well looks like someone’s made a mistake.It was written by the same people who wrote or inspired the Didache, however - so the Didache’s definition of Baptism can be assumed to be the one being used in the Bible.
I think the Didache was also written in Greek, so if “Baptism” means “immerse” then what kind of sense does it make to say, “You can immerse by immersion in running water, or you can immerse by pouring water over the head three times, or you can immerse by immersion in still water.”
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Pouring water on someone is not immersing them, nor is it dipping or washing. The Didache is far enough removed from the apostles that “Baptism” had come to be a noun rather than a verb, taking on its own meanings. These arguments do nothing, however, to establish how Paul was Baptized and it seems wishful thinking to assume it is the modern Roman Catholic method, which though acceptable was not the prefered method. Baptism by sand was also a possibility, yet I hear no one arguing this was what happened.
J
jmcrae
Guest
It precedes most of the New Testament. The Didache was written in 50 AD - most of the New Testament was written between 60-90 AD.
Sand?
N
Nine_Two
Guest
While I’m not sure about 50, you’re right, I got my dates mixed up there.
There are stories of sand being used in Baptism in the dessert with no water available.
J
Jonah11
Guest
3Or don’t you know that know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, juust as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Fahter, we too may live a new life. (Romans 6:3-4)
Immersion is the symbolic representation of dying with Christ to sin, and being ressurected with Him to a new life of obedience. Jesus Himself set the example in the Jordan River, being baptized by John the Baptist, and the Apostles likewise preached repentance unto baptism for the remission of sins for the duration of their ministry. The official term for this immersion is “baptism”. In this verse Paul walks us through the step by step process of how the symbolism of baptism is the spiritual reality of what is taking place in the repentant sinner’s life. Immersion is the only way to be “buried with Christ” and then to “raise up from the dead” as Christ did to a “new life”. If, and I’m guessing, that some are suggesting that St. Paul was sprinkled or poured?
Since Paul is the author of Romans, and is describing what baptism is, I believe we’d be calling Paul a hypocrit to say he wasn’t baptized exactly like his description. And according to this verse, it doesn’t sound like anything but immersion would satisfy Paul’s description of baptism here.
That’s not to say that God doesn’t count every style of baptism, as long as the sinner’s repentance is real/sincere. I believe He does.
I
Irish_Polock
Guest
Please, excuse me if this has already been covered:
In Acts 9:18, the context does not support baptism by immersion. In verse 11, St. Paul is said to be in the “house of Judas.” In verse 17, Ananias meets St. Paul as he “entered the house.” This indicates that St. Paul was baptized in the house of Judas. There is no record of seeking a large pool of water in or outside the city of Damascus. Rather, it is intimated that Ananias used what was convenient in the house of Judas. Secondly, verse 18 indicates that as soon as St. Paul “rose” he was baptized. The scene is depicted such that St. Paul is standing in the house of Judas and is being baptized. There is no intimation that Ananias sought out a large pool of water in which to immerse St. Paul. The context suggests that Ananias would have chosen the simpler method of pouring or sprinkling water on St. Paul.
In the history of the Catholic Church, two basic modes of baptism were practiced. The first was aspersion (sprinkling) or affusion (pouring); the second was immersion. Both forms, for the most part, existed sidebyside. As early as the second century, however, pictures on the walls of Roman catacombs depict the baptismal candidate standing in water, upon which another figure is pouring water from a vessel on the head of the recipient. This is more or less the picture described in Mt 3:13-16 in which Jesus is baptized by John and then “came up out of the water.”
Later, Church Fathers such as Cyprian and the writers of the Didache supported affusion, the latter stipulating clinical necessity and triune affusion. Other fathers, however, such as Tertullian and Chrysostom, advocated triune immersion, such that the recipient was immersed three times in water to coincide with the formula of Mt 28:19 “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Later, Pope Gregory I allowed single immersion along with triune immersion in an effort to symbolize both the Unity and Trinity of the Godhead against Arian polytheism. Immersion as a whole was more popular in the warmer climates of Africa and southern Europe, triune immersion being practiced more in the Eastern Churches.
Since infant baptism was the doctrinal standard of the early church, sprinkling became the more convenient mode of baptism, probably due to the fragility of the infant. By the time of Aquinas, he allowed both immersion and sprinkling, while Duns Scotus and Bonaventure preferred immersion.
P
placido
Guest
Yes, baptizo can also mean dip but “dip” what … feet, hands, arms, legs or the head? Only tradition will help you answer that question.
placido
P
placido
Guest
And yours is based on an assumption that he did not depart from the norm. For whatever reason your assumption is acceptable, my assumption is unwelcome.
Okay … okay … I stand corrected.
Don’t forget I was responding to what you said, and what you said is that you don’t think Acts 9 can be used to dismiss the standard methodology to which I said 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.
Yes, Acts 9 says nothing about how to baptize or what ways are valid. But people like the Full Gospel pastor are forced by their tradition to see “immersion” in Acts 9.
placido
P
placido
Guest
Exactly … but those who reject other methods of baptism are forced to assume he was immersed because, according to them, that is the only valid method of baptism.
placido
- Status