Question about Acts 2:38: What about the martyrs?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Here's the thing that's bothering me:

It seems some are doggedly asserting that unless another person's hands are upon the person being baptized, God doesn't consider it legit, i.e. it's not a Biblical baptism.

How technical are we going to get?

What if a person only uses one hand instead of two? What if a person's foot comes up out of the water when they are baptized? What if a person pushes them down by their head as opposed to leaning them back with their arms? How legalistic do we need to get before a baptism is considered okay? Immersion is immersion is immersion.

Some insist you have to add Lord and/or Christ to the name of Jesus or it's no good.

Some think they have to quote "for the remission of sins" a la Acts 2:38 or it's no good.

Some think that baptism can only be in "living water" from a lake, stream, sea, or ocean, as opposed to a man-made baptistery, or it's no good.

Some think the whole church or at least 2/3's need to be present, or it's no good.

Some think only a licensed minister can immerse or it's no good.

Some think only men can immerse or it's no good.

None of this has to do with the faith and commitment to Jesus Christ of the person being immersed.

Ananias, grammatically speaking, only indicated that Paul needed to get himself baptized while calling on the name of the Lord when doing it. Acts 22:16 does not read that Ananias performed the immersion. So how did Paul follow through with it? Acts never says. To make a case otherwise is an argument from silence.

In Acts 2, the 3,000 received the word and were baptized, but it does not read that each were placed into an apostle's hands and physically submerged by one of them, one at a time.

Yes, there are other indicators that a person was in fact immersed by another person, literally speaking.

But other passages are completely silent on the issue. We just know that an immersion or immersions took place in the name of Jesus. We don't even have a quote in which it reads that the name of Jesus was spoken out loud, whether by the person being baptized or by the one performing the baptism. We can only (and I think correctly) assume that it happened, even though the texts in question don't actually indicate it's so.

And besides, it's not like the name of Jesus is a charm that remits sins apart from Jesus Himself doing the actual remitting, by His blood.

So for all those who say a person can't be by themselves in order to immerse themselves, I ask: Isn't Jesus present and there as a witness to confirm the immersion in His name when He (and not just His name) actually forgives a person and remits their sins? If He is being invoked in faith, doesn't He show up to answer?

It looks like you are hanging onto Acts 22:16 in hopes that it is the verse which proves your case hands down. Which it does not. 3,000 baptized in Acts 2:38 still doesn't prove that the apostles and those who were in the upper room with them weren't active participants with the baptisms. You have also ignored the offerings by Brother Burk (especially historic evidence) how mikva were witnessed. That was disappointing to me. Yet, you want us to accept that the New Testament neophyte baptism was akin to the daily ritual washings of the Judeans, which the neophyte logically had to be witnessed. John the Baptist proves this by his rejection of Pharisaical neophytes coming to his baptism being told they needed to have sufficient evidence of their change prior to baptism. Now, if John wasn't there, who then would of prevented them? Another neophyte who was Ethiopian understood that he needed to be baptized, but if the neophyte baptism could be performed alone why didn't Phillip remain in the chariot? Do you understand the question begging your explanation creates?