tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post7291439939117405729..comments2023-12-22T08:29:29.230-08:00Comments on WHAT IS TRUTH: Selective ReformationKent Brandenburghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-91810006484142377862016-11-04T13:52:56.024-07:002016-11-04T13:52:56.024-07:00Dear Pastor Ken - Greetings; I just want to commen...Dear Pastor Ken - Greetings; I just want to comment that you are one of a few Pastors I have seen who is knowledgeable, really do their homework, and make thought provoking posts for Independent Baptists. While the jury is still up for me when it comes to Landmarkism, I can definitely say that I have never seen nor could ever come up with Bible verses that implied the 'invisibility' or 'universality' of the local church and anyone I have ever asked always comes up with implications in verses.<br /><br />Thank you again - Peter JamesPeter Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14716693731900218740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-59019333499215623242011-08-04T13:34:23.698-07:002011-08-04T13:34:23.698-07:00Dr. Ferguson,
Just to say in private email, I'...Dr. Ferguson,<br /><br />Just to say in private email, I've called him "Kent" but in forums, it's "Pastor Brandenburg". I don't ask for the same in return, I have reasons for preferring to just use initials. But if you prefer, I would call you PS or "hey you" or "The Committed Sprinkler" or whatever moniker you want. :)<br /><br />You never answered my citation of Edersheim, by the way. Do you still claim that Jewish proselyte baptism by immersion is just an "immersionist myth"? How did we manage to fool a scholar and paedobaptist like Edersheim on that point?jghttp://www.mindrenewers.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-45604954700690249562011-08-02T09:52:19.809-07:002011-08-02T09:52:19.809-07:00PS,
I'm glad to hear the politeness thing cle...PS,<br /><br />I'm glad to hear the politeness thing cleared up. Just to be clear then about what I mean by "baptism" has one meaning is that "baptism in the Bible has one meaning." I don't concur that baptizo means several things, but even if it does, it only means one thing in the Bible, since the Bible has one meaning. There is no basis for ambiguity here. I know that the Free Presbyterians take a position that allows for more than one mode, but we don't have a basis in the Bible for more than one mode. We've got to come down on one or the other is what I'm saying.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-60089995442237340982011-08-02T09:34:06.346-07:002011-08-02T09:34:06.346-07:00PS,
What language? The point of Acts 10:47 is tha...PS,<br />What language? The point of Acts 10:47 is that the believers cannot be denied water baptism. It says nothing about water being brought to them.<br />Sprinkling doesn't require "much water" (as in John 3:23a). Immersion is the only mode that places the candidate "into the water" (as in Acts 8:38). <br /> <br />Candidates being brought to the waters is significant because that is what is seen in the Bible.<br /><br />Immersion is historically the first and recognized manner or mode of baptism. This fact is reported virtually by every historian and/or historical writing which bears upon the topic. Edward Hiscox in his book "Principles and Practices for Baptist Churches," reports a brief history on the deviant mode of pouring. He notes that the first incident of "aspersion" (or pouring) is that of Novatian in A.D. 250 upon his sick bed, hence it is called "clinic baptism." Sprinkling however is rather sketchy but one historian (Vedder) places it on A.D. 259 and adapted as a mode by the Roman Catholic Council of Revenna in 1311. Infant baptism, being motivated by the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration (or pardon through baptism) was recognized as early as A.D. 350. One can observe that convenience would be a motive of changing from immersion to any other mode. This change, however convenient it may be, is unjustifiable. The very word for baptism itself, and the examples in Scripture, and the teachings regarding baptism within the Scriptures themselves tells us that immersion is the only Biblical mode for believer's baptism (or credobaptism - from the Latin "creed" meaning belief, i.e. we only baptized those who have made a profession of faith in Christ - which is another reason why we don't baptize infants, they cannot exercise repentance from sin and self and belief on the Lord Jesus Christ).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11879718171217215602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-83513167124834625072011-08-02T00:53:30.381-07:002011-08-02T00:53:30.381-07:00Thanks Kent
I have read the immersionist defences...Thanks Kent<br /><br />I have read the immersionist defences. I don't agree with them so that is why we have interacted on this blog. It seems most of your readers have not read the standard non-immersionist responses. Incidentally, "baptizo" can mean a number of things despite your claim "The word doesn't mean two things." Even immersionists accept that it can mean, at the very least, "to dip, to dye, to permanently submerge."<br /><br />I appreciate all of you trying to argue from Scripture, but despite your best efforts we have got no further than it seems from the syntax that it must be immersion and burial with Christ must mean immersion. That is hardly overwhelming evidence to lead you to decry the majority of Bible-believing saints throughout the ages as being part of non-Nt churches because they did not immerse. Incidentally, no one has yet explained how immersing someone in water best represents the crucifixion of Christ, the removal of His body, the wrapping it in grave clothes, and the placing in in a hewn rock tomb with a stone above the ground. <br /><br />BTW - I was not playing the victim card. I appreciate the direct style here. It is a man's website so am happy to give and take. Like Elijah am happy to be the only one left on Scripture on this issue! My surprise was merely directed at the complimentary style of JG and a few others. I did not say I was comfortable with it.PSFergusonhttp://www.oldfaith.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-52769316085267339652011-08-01T11:47:13.582-07:002011-08-01T11:47:13.582-07:00P.S.,
Rather than write out a long defense of imm...P.S.,<br /><br />Rather than write out a long defense of immersion, which is the obvious mode of baptism, read other defenses of it that will say what I would say.<br /><br />J. T. Christian, Immersion: The Act of Christian Baptism, http://books.google.com/books?id=ZqUTAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=text<br /><br />Here's what immersion has going for it:<br />*The examples read immersion. They don't read anything like pouring or sprinkling. The prepositions read immerse.<br />*The history of the word baptizo is used as immerse, which is why lexicons have it mean immerse to, and they show the examples.<br />*The association with baptism is immerse: burial<br />*The history of the understanding of "baptize" is immerse. Sprinkling came in later from Roman Catholicism.<br /><br />All of these are typically the way we understand doctrine, and then reject false doctrine. The word doesn't mean two things. That also is illogical. So if it does mean immerse, it doesn't mean sprinkle or pour.<br /><br />Thanks P.S. I do like you and I don't even have a problem with your edginess. I like your writing style. I won't even say that you haven't been polite, even though you intimated we weren't so that seemingly you could throw down the victim card. Hey, if we're not polite, let's get it settled, so you don't have to be a victim.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-14020874519811133492011-08-01T07:48:45.381-07:002011-08-01T07:48:45.381-07:00Titus
Your contribution has added nothing further...Titus<br /><br />Your contribution has added nothing further to this debate. Like all the immersionists here you just assume “baptizo” means immerse because it must to suit your presuppositions. I am glad that you accept that baptismos and baptizo are from the same root and bizarrely then claim “They all describe the immersion, temporary or permanent, of an object.” Sorry but “baptismos” is the word used in Hebrews 9:10 which has to refer to a sprinkling ritual because the passage refers in Hebrews 9:13 to the OT passage in Numbers 19:17-18 which is sprinkling. Indeed, the law never required immersions but frequently explicitly demanded sprinklings as seen in Hebrews 9:13, 19, 21. It would take some major twisting of the passage, ripping out of the context, and rejection of all the OT witnesses to argue that “baptismos” means immerse! Bizarrely your argument is that Hebrews 9:10 “baptismos” means “diverse types of immersions” – just give me at least two from the OT then? Baptism is not a NT ritual but as Hebrews 9 proves it goes back to Moses! It is always by sprinkling! The “diverse washings” was not the mode but the element used - Numbers 19:17-18; Exodus 24:6, 8; Leviticus 8:19; 16:14. Even Kent seems to realize that and has tried to argue that the word has no relation to “baptizo.” Finally Mark 7:4 the word “tables” means couches which would be an odd belief that the Pharisees immersed their couches every time they ate. Where would they find such a ceremonial immersion ritual in the OT? <br />The point about Isaiah 52:15 is also pertinent to the incident with John the Baptist. What prompted the leaders of Judaism to think he may be the Messiah because of his baptizing ministry? Answer – the prophecies of the OT predicting the baptizing ministry of the Messiah. Where are these? Isaiah 52:15 and Ezekiel 36:25. Both refer to sprinkling ministry of the Messiah!<br /><br />I don’t want to prolong this discussion but your claims that the syntax of <br />"came up out of the water" proves immersion. That is equally true of all modes but you must then be consistent in using syntax all the way. In Acts 9 the syntax of Paul’s baptism literally "standing up, he was baptized" (Acts 9: 18) so that rules out immersion as the mode. <br /><br />Bill Hardecker<br /><br />That statement that "in every Baptism in the New Testament, the candidate is brought to the waters, and not the other way around" is not true. In Acts 10:47 the language is just the opposite. However, even if were true that the candidate was brought to water it would prove nothing as to the mode.PSFergusonhttp://www.oldfaith.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-61379922533468963412011-07-31T07:18:21.778-07:002011-07-31T07:18:21.778-07:00We can observe in the Bible that in every Baptism ...We can observe in the Bible that in every Baptism in the New Testament, the candidate is brought to the waters, and not the other way around.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11879718171217215602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-832636617658693432011-07-28T13:03:26.788-07:002011-07-28T13:03:26.788-07:00P.S.,
I don't think I'm going to write an...P.S.,<br /><br />I don't think I'm going to write any more to you, because I think others have answered very well. I don't think you can use baptismos for your argument, because it is obvious not NT baptism that it is talking about, but OT ceremonial washing---in every case. So without using a lexicon, you are going to have a problem.<br /><br />I'll be writing more concerning the church issues in a part two here.<br /><br />D4,<br /><br />Joshua answered the question just like I would. Ekklesia is an assembly. When Jesus says "my assembly" He is differentiating from other assemblies, other governing bodies. That is backed by the "gates," "keys," and "kingdom" reference in the next verse. The singular noun is either a generic or a particular---there is no Platonic usage of the singular noun in Greek grammar. It either is an institutional usage, speaking of the ekklesia as an institution (generic use), or a particular assembly (the Jerusalem assembly). When Jesus says "will build," the Greek word is oikodomeo, that is, "to edify." Jesus will edify His assembly, that is, build up His assembly.<br /><br />What is His assembly? It is the assembly that follows Him, which is to follow "the faith" once delivered.Kent Brandenburghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13419354741455959191noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-81856145705709576262011-07-27T15:28:19.809-07:002011-07-27T15:28:19.809-07:00Therefore, your question,
"why did the Holy...Therefore, your question, <br /><br />"why did the Holy Spirit not expressly say that it was by immersion in the NT when He made it explicitly clear in the OT that ritual symbolic cleansings were by sprinkling."<br /><br />Is answered by simply noting that the Holy Spirit DID expressly say that baptism is by immersion - that's why he used baptizo. That's the word in Greek that means "immerse."<br /><br />I find it interesting that you suggested egkataduno as a word that the Holy Spirit "should" have used if He were going to describe something being immersed. What? That is NOT what that word means. In fact, the word is used exactly once in Greek literature (never in the NT), in Josephus' Jewish Wars, to describe people who *fled underground* into subterranean caverns to escape the Romans. I suppose there is a vague similarity to the meaning of baptizo in the sense of somebody going down inside something, but really, to suggest that the two words are synonymous, or that egkataduno would be a "better" word to describe immersion in a liquid is simply credulous. <br /><br />I also observed that you were relying upon Isa. 52:15 as evidence for sprinkling as a mode of baptism. I'm tempted to assume that you were simply being facetious, but I don't think you were.<br /><br />Your argument for Isa. 52:15, especially using it to try to prove mode of baptism, is not credible. This verse is not describing baptism in any way, shape, or form. It is instead describing Messiah's priestly role when He returns - the nations that had previously rejected Him will now be astonished before Him, their kings will be made subject to Him, and this verse apparently describes a cleansing of these people as they go into the Millennium, probably analagous to the cleansing of the people of Israel in Ex. 24:8 when they entered into covenant with Him. There is nothing to suggest that baptism is the intended method of cleansing (especially since baptism is never scripturally a method of cleansing from sin anywise).<br /><br />In summation, the only mode of baptism that we see in the NT is immersion. Therefore, when Jesus was baptised, it was by immersion. When the Ethiopian eunuch was baptised, it was by immersion. The fact that the Holy Spirit tells us that in both these cases, the ones being baptised "came up out of the water" ought to serve as a common sense indicator of what the mode was, without having to resort to lexica, etc. I'm sorry, but there is simply NO credible case to be made for sprinkling as a mode of baptism - period.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-76494360005903029222011-07-27T15:27:59.992-07:002011-07-27T15:27:59.992-07:00(cont.) While I do not believe the LXX to be a goo...(cont.) While I do not believe the LXX to be a good translation, and certainly don't think it can be used to "correct" the Masoretic text, I nevertheless think the LXX *can* provide a clue as to how its translators (paraphrasers?) understood the Hebrews terms, by how they rendered them in Greek.<br /><br />It is interesting that at no place where the OT rituals of sprinkling, either blood or water, are mentioned did the LXX translators render "sprinkle" as any form or derivative or bapto.<br /><br />Very clearly, whatever else bapto, baptismos, and baptizo may mean, sprinkling is NOT included.<br /><br />Your attempt to defend baptismo as sprinkling from Hebrews 9:10 is insufficient. Basically, what you're doing is *assuming* that the "divers washings" in this verse are referring to sprinklings. However, this is not the case. <br /><br />Look at the context. The verse is talking specifically about the ordinances of washings *for the priests* (with a view towards showing that Christ as our High Priest replaced all of that). So, we're not talking about things like the sprinkling of the blood on the people at the consecration of the covenant, nor the various purification rituals for houses, people who had touched dead bodies, etc. It is talking specifically about the washing rituals for the priests. <br /><br />These would include things like washing their hands and feet before entering in to minister in the Tabernacle (Ex. 30:19-21), washing Aaron and his sons with water (Ex. 40:12), washing in preparation for and after ministry (Lev. 16:4, 24; Num. 19:7), etc. Included with these perhaps could also be the various washings that the people were to make of their flesh and their clothing after various things like taking the ashes of sacrifices outside the camp, etc.<br /><br />Hence, there is no reason at all to think Hebrews 9:10 is support for a "sprinkling" meaning to baptismos. Further, your assertion that the OT "always" links cleansing with sprinkling is false.<br /><br />Further, the uses of baptismo in Mark 7:4 and 7:8 clearly suggest an "immersion" meaning for the word, since one doesn't wash dishes by "sprinkling" them, but by dunking them in water.<br /><br />Hence, there seems to be absolutely no lexical nor Biblical support for any variant or derivative of bapto as meaning anything besides immersion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-39680196655134590062011-07-27T15:27:22.432-07:002011-07-27T15:27:22.432-07:00PS Ferguson - I must admit, you are making a valia...PS Ferguson - I must admit, you are making a valiant effort at defending infant baptism (via sprinkling), but it is to no avail.<br /><br />You said, "If baptizo was so clearly immersion we would not be having this dispute. You claim that the Koine word means only immerse yet when I show you what the same lexicons say about baptismos being a related word meaning sprinkling you reject it."<br /><br />You have further tried to rely upon the word "baptismos" as meaning "sprinkling," and have appealed to Hebrews 9:10 to support this.<br /><br />Your arguments are simply completely wrong. Every last one of them. <br /><br />First of all, bapto, baptismos, and baptizo are all derived from (or are) the same root. Hence, it stands to reason that all of them will have similar meanings. In fact, they do. They all describe the immersion, temporary or permanent, of an object. That's it. They do not refer to sprinkling, lexically or contextually.<br /><br />First of all, I'd like to ask what your lexical source for saying that "baptismos" means "sprinkling" is. The reason I ask is because the lexical sources I've seen (Liddell and Scott, and the intermediate Liddell) both say that baptismos refers to dipping or immersion, but say nothing about sprinkling.<br /><br />The only five uses of baptismos in Greek literature are certainly not definitive. Three are in the NT, one is in Josephus describing John the Baptist as "baptising" people (but does little to disambiguate), and one is in Plutarch, where the word definitely is describing immersion.<br /><br />In Greek literature outside the Bible, every single use of the verb baptizo is in connection with something being immersed, drowned, covered with a liquid, etc., or else is a figurative use which depends on allusion to the same. Every single one. There is no use of the verb baptizo in any Greek literature that I am aware of that uses the verb to describe sprinkling. <br /><br />Indeed, one use by Josephus is very pertinent here because Josephus uses baptizo to describe the dipping of hyssop into water in one of the purification rituals, but then uses a completely different verb to describe the act of sprinkling the hyssop.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-63321184377816821302011-07-27T06:47:08.577-07:002011-07-27T06:47:08.577-07:00D4
The Greek rendering of "I will build my c...D4<br /><br />The Greek rendering of "I will build my church" includes the article with the word "Ekklesia" so in one sense it may be said that it refers to only one church. However, Dr. Brandenburg would probably say that Jesus referred to the church in a general sense, much as one would refer to the plough by saying "the plough was one of the most useful inventions of all time." Personally, I believe it refers to the true church (as opposed to the visible) in that a visible church may be in apostasy (and thus not fulfill the promise) or have unregenerate tares as members. The true church is within the local/visible and is made up exclusively of regenerate wheat.Liam O'Briannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-59022500338217916042011-07-27T00:54:30.232-07:002011-07-27T00:54:30.232-07:00Hi d4,
The assembly (ekklesia) Christ built upon ...Hi d4,<br /><br />The assembly (ekklesia) Christ built upon Peter's rock (his confession of faith in Christ) was His own assembly. He said "my assembly" to differ it from the other assemblies that existed in the day, like the one there at Ceasarea Phillipi that governed the city.<br /><br />What does His assembly look like? It looks like born again believers in an organized assembly, overseen by elders, served by deacons, carrying out the Great Commission in obedience to Scriptural doctrine, of whom Christ is the head.<br /><br />If your church doesn't look like that, then it's not His assembly.Joshuanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-24573002700910929732011-07-26T16:29:43.808-07:002011-07-26T16:29:43.808-07:00Since Bro B. is busy, I'll open this up to any...Since Bro B. is busy, I'll open this up to anyone.<br /><br />What church did Christ build on Peter's "rock"? From the English (I don't know Greek) that appears to be the only church to which the gates of hell promise applies to,d4v34xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07346680257860879900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-11010833744889659052011-07-26T12:14:45.185-07:002011-07-26T12:14:45.185-07:00To get back to the orginality of this thread, I wo...To get back to the orginality of this thread, I would have to ask what proof can be set forth that only Baptists are in descent from the apostles. It is said that Luther merely rehashed the beliefs of Huss (something he admitted to) and Huss was clearly picking up where Wycliffe left off. Wycliffe himself was said by the Romanists to have "renewed the heresies of the Albigenses and the Waldenses" - both remnant groups dating back centuries before. It is also said by some that Wycliffe was spiritually descended from the Culdees, a sect that arose in Britain and Wales about the year 63 - with beliefs similar to, but not completely in agreement with modern Baptists.<br /><br />Did the Reformers come as far as I would have liked? Absolutely not. However, I also realise that unless one is willing to say that God made a mistake in not choosing him to be one of the Reformation leaders, he ought not say anything else about it.<br /><br />It is simple logic: God picked the best possible candidate to be Adam - while we might like to think differently, we could have only done worse than Adam. Somebody, out of all the possible men who ever lived or could ever live, had to be Adam and God picked Adam. In the same way, somebody had to be Dr. Martin Luther, or Dr. John Calvin, &c. God picked the best possible candidates to be them.<br /><br />If we are going to say they should have learnt and grown more, I will reverse the question - why haven't we, with five centuries of hindsight (always 20/20) and teachers to help us (something they had neither of), learnt and grown more?Liam O'Briannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-22860925966304711412011-07-26T10:57:33.413-07:002011-07-26T10:57:33.413-07:00In relation to the connection between pouring and ...In relation to the connection between pouring and immersion the two can be quite connected. I believe Bro. Brandenburg referenced this earlier, Christ poured out the Holy Spirit until those present where immersed in the Holy Spirit. Just as I could put a rock in a bowl and and pour in water until it was immersed, thus Baptizing it by<br /> pouring.James Wyatthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06852764984839182373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-68314615319421997932011-07-26T09:01:03.705-07:002011-07-26T09:01:03.705-07:00PS, you said:
"All that we know that the Scr...PS, you said:<br /><br />"All that we know that the Scribes and Pharisees prided themselves on their adherence to the minutest degree on the OT external rituals."<br /><br />I think you will find that the Scribes and Pharisees were more interested in following the external practices they had invented in order to maintain their unscriptural authority than following God's word as it was given in the Old Testament. We can never assume that the Scribes and Pharisees were practicing anything from the OT as God had intended them to practice it.<br /><br />It would be interesting to see what the Talmud says about baptism since that is what they were most likely practicing during Christ's time on Earth.Jonathan Speerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948005615737546620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-55658748486224822542011-07-26T06:05:25.680-07:002011-07-26T06:05:25.680-07:00PS,
Thanks for some further information on your re...PS,<br />Thanks for some further information on your reasons for not accepting the meaning of baptizo. <br />When you ask about the Pharisees questioning John about immersing, that is exactly what they did: "Why baptizeth thou then?" John 1:25. Why did they not ask, "Why sprinklest thou then?" & use rantidzw or prosxusis - words that Paul used to speak of sprinkling when he wrote to Jewish Christians?Gary Webbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-38802607147684591462011-07-25T23:37:23.734-07:002011-07-25T23:37:23.734-07:00Dr. Ferguson,
I refer you to Alfred Edersheim, in...Dr. Ferguson,<br /><br />I refer you to Alfred Edersheim, in his Appendix to "Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah". If you don't possess the book, every Bible student ought to, but the appendix in question can be found at http://articles.ochristian.com/article14832.shtml.<br /><br />Edersheim argues that Jewish proselyte baptism by immersion was indeed taking place at the time of Christ, and gives his reasons.<br /><br />Edersheim was an ordained minister of the Free Church of Scotland. I'm presuming you know that is a Presbyterian denomination that practices infant baptism by sprinkling. He then became a minister in the Church of England, which practices the same.<br /><br />If Jewish proselyte baptism is simply an "immersionist myth", it was propagated by a non-immersionist, and one who has studied the rabbinic writings more deeply than perhaps any other Christian scholar. He would have had as much theological inclination to deny Jewish immersion in the time of Christ as anyone, yet he did not.<br /><br />That the Jews practiced baptism by immersion proves nothing about Christian baptism. That there is nothing in the Scriptures to indicate any distinction (other than the public nature of Christian baptism) does give evidence on "our" side of the scales. How heavily one weights that evidence is perhaps dependent on one's theological perspective.jghttp://www.mindrenewers.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-91494950107265443662011-07-25T19:18:07.122-07:002011-07-25T19:18:07.122-07:00James Watt
Please read my paper. If the Holy Spir...James Watt<br /><br />Please read my paper. If the Holy Spirit had wanted to use a Greek word that means to immerse He could have used egkataduno which means “sink beneath.” Again the same point you and JG need to answer – why did the Holy Spirit not expressly say that it was by immersion in the NT when He made it explicitly clear in the OT that ritual symbolic cleansings were by sprinkling. No one has given me a proper answer yet.<br /><br />JG<br /><br />If baptizo was so clearly immersion we would not be having this dispute. You claim that the Koine word means only immerse yet when I show you what the same lexicons say about baptismos being a related word meaning sprinkling you reject it. Now, either we go we the lexicon approach consistently or not at all. The issue is not what the Koine Greek speakers understood baptizo but how the Scriptures used the word. If the word is used in a context where a strict root-meaning is inapplicable, the word’s definition has been expanded into a semantic range by a natural linguistic process of expansion. That I demonstrated by the use of baptismos and the explicit linking of baptizo with pouring in Acts 1:5; Joel 2; Acts 3:17; Acts 10:44-47; and Acts 11:16. Ironically, one major lexicon gives baptizo as plunging under and remaining submerged under. Don’t see many Baptists taking that approach!<br /><br />The point I was making about the correlation between water sprinkling and blood sprinkling is that when the OT links cleansing by blood and by water it is always by the mode of sprinkling. Ezekiel 36:25 is a classic text for that. Lance Ketchum makes a good observation about Christ’s baptism by John and OT sprinkling rituals. In fact, why if John was immersing, why did the Pharisees, who were sticklers for the law, not inquire why the Levitical son of a priest is immersing when all the OT priests used sprinkling in their cleansing rites e.g. Numbers 8:5-7? It is safe and entirely reasonable to assume that John’s baptism was identical in mode and manner to all of the baptisms of the Old Testament economy.<br /><br />You stated “We know that the Jews practiced proselyte baptism by total immersion.” This is a standard immersionist myth. We know no such thing. There is not a hint of it in the OT or the NT. All that we know that the Scribes and Pharisees prided themselves on their adherence to the minutest degree on the OT external rituals. That included for proselytes – circumcision and blood & water sprinkling rituals. Where would they get the idea to immerse from? Where does it say they did?PSFergusonhttp://www.oldfaith.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-26262125722081954882011-07-25T17:28:33.549-07:002011-07-25T17:28:33.549-07:00PS,
Regarding the paragraph way back in your orig...PS,<br /><br />Regarding the paragraph way back in your original post dealing with Paul's church membership, :-), I thought I'd let you know that the reason Paul seemed to have "universal" church appeal and authority was because he was an apostle. As much as some men throughout history and in our day try to have apostolic ministries (meaning, they wish to have broad influence among churches), they cannot have a Biblically apostolic ministry because they do not meet the requirements of an apostle like Paul and Peter did.<br /><br />Thanks everyone for the well-thought-out discussion!Jonathan Speerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17948005615737546620noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-32677854113854297682011-07-25T15:52:42.462-07:002011-07-25T15:52:42.462-07:00PS,
I know you are busy, but you only answered par...PS,<br />I know you are busy, but you only answered part of my post. I would ask along with James Wyatt, what Koine Greek word means to dip or immerse? Do we have any lexicon telling us that baptizo means to sprinkle? The only reason you can try to make the words sprinkle, pour, and baptism mean the same thing is because you reject the express meaning of the word baptizo.Gary Webbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-83517126527825421152011-07-25T13:46:24.447-07:002011-07-25T13:46:24.447-07:00Bro B.,
Boy, did the ecclesiology train get dera...Bro B., <br /><br />Boy, did the ecclesiology train get derailed!<br /><br />You may have dealt with this elsewhere, but this may provide an interesting respite from the baptism discussion, so I'll ask. <br /><br />What church did Christ build on Peter's "rock"? Is that the only church built on said rock?d4v34xhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07346680257860879900noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20213892.post-81313972389289546212011-07-25T13:10:12.669-07:002011-07-25T13:10:12.669-07:00Dr. Ferguson,
If I seem to be polite, please don&...Dr. Ferguson,<br /><br />If I seem to be polite, please don't take it too personally. :) I try to be polite to everyone, not just you. You probably know that Churchill said if you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite. That's true when you have to kill a man's position, too, I suppose.<br /><br />"There is always a correlative in the OT between sprinkling with blood and sprinkling with water to illustrate spiritual cleansing and separation e.g. Ezekiel 36:25; Num. 19:1-13." Always? How about "in a few cases"?<br /><br />In fact, the overwhelming majority of uses of the word "sprinkling" (there are actually two Hebrew words, but I've missed any substantive difference between them) refer to blood, with no mention of water. And where it is water, it often refers to water of purification, which included the ashes of the heifer -- in other words, a sacrifice.<br /><br />There is no cleansing without a sacrifice, right?<br /><br />Your reference to Hebrews 10:22 makes it clear -- sprinkling is a reference to the sacrificial work of Christ, by which we are cleansed. It has nothing to do with water baptism, because water baptism is not a sacrifice.<br /><br />I understand the non-immersionist position. But you do it a disservice to try to claim that Isaiah 52 is problematic for Baptists.<br /><br />"Why can we not all see baptizo is immersion? Because the text is not explicit!"<br /><br />Perhaps the problem here is that the text explicitly used a word that means to immerse. Anyone who know Koine Greek knew what that meant, so it was hardly necessary to lay it out. It was explicit.<br /><br />Here's another question for you. We know that the Jews practiced proselyte baptism by total immersion. <br /><br />When John started baptising, the Jews came and asked why he was baptising. They didn't ask, "Why aren't you immersing people like we do?" Natural conclusion: He was immersing people. <br /><br />Why does the NT never spell it out that other "modes" are ok? The argument from silence here cuts against you more than it cuts for you.jghttp://www. mindrenewers.comnoreply@blogger.com