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?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Votivesoul, what about the posting concerning a baptism where the minister performing the baptism and the neophyte creating some sort of special bond? Is that some placebo effect caused by some self induced emotional psychobabble? Or is it Biblical? That we can find this within scripture of some sort of bond created by minister and those they baptize? I have never felt this way myself, because everyone in the church family I have a special bond with regardless of who was baptized by me or some other minister, but maybe since you brought this up in another thread and it is your experience you can enlighten me on this issue.

Because if people could just climb in a bathtub or kiddie pool and shout baptize me Jesus! Then that whole special bonding thing is hooey.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by TK Burk

There's a huge difference between no witnesses to see you're baptism and no help from your witnesses when you're baptized.

I believe the first is not biblical and the last to be biblical with the early believers.

Although I do not adhere to all this ministry represents, I believe the following STUDY is worth considering:


How Immersion Was Done

Jewish baptism has never been taken lightly, but in ancient times immersion was to be performed in the presence of witnesses (Yebam. 47b). The person being baptized made special preparations by cutting his nails, undressed completely and made a fresh profession of his faith before the designated "fathers of the baptism" (Kethub. 11a; Erub 15a). This is possibly where churches, sometime later, got the term Godfathers. The individual stood straight up with the feet spread and the hands held out in front. The candidate would totally immerse themselves by squatting in the water with a witness or baptizer doing the officiating. Note the New Testament points out the fact that Jesus came up straightway out of the water (Matthew 3:16).

The earliest drawing of Christian baptism was found on the wall of a Roman catacomb in the second century showing John standing on the bank of the Jordan helping Jesus back to shore after self immersion.

Ancient sages teach that the word mikveh has the same letters as Ko(v)Meh, the Hebrew word for "rising" or "standing tall," therefore we see the idea of being baptized "straightway."

Although it is the Jewish belief that repentance is necessary, purification from defilement is done primarily through water, while other effects of sins are covered by blood (Romans 4:7; note the "almost all things" in Hebrews 9:22). The concept of immersion in rabbinic literature is referred to as a new birth (Yeb. 22a; 48b; 97b; Mass. Ger. c.ii). Note six other important aspects of ancient Jewish immersion:

1.Immersion was accompanied by exhortations and benedictions (Maimonides Hilkh. Milah iii.4; Hilkh. Iss, Biah Xiv .6). A convert would reaffirm his acceptance of the Torah by declaring, "I will do and I will hear" which was a phrase from the oath that was originally taken by the priests not to forsake the Torah (Deuteronomy 29:9- 14). This ritual demonstrates the willingness of the convert to forsake his Gentile background and assume his Jewish identity by taking on the status of one who keeps the commandments.

According to a number of Jewish sages, mayim, which is the Hebrew word for water, shares the same root as the word "mah", meaning "what." This teaching points out that when a person immerses in water, he is nullifying the fleshly ego and is asking, "what am I?" in the same manner that Moses and Aaron did in Exodus 16:7 when they said to the Lord, "we are what?"

2. The Jewish baptism candidates were often immersed three times. The idea of total immersion comes from the Scripture in Leviticus 15:16 when it says, "he shall wash all his flesh in the water." One reason it was customary to immerse three times was because the word mikveh occurs three times in the Torah.

3. According to Jewish law the immersion had to have a required witness. Dr. William LaSor in the Biblical Archaeology Review says apparently the Biblical phrase "in the name of" was an indication of the required witness. In several New Testament references such as I Corinthians 1:13, 15; Matthew 21:25; Acts 1:22; and Acts 19:3 we see early baptism mentioned in conjunction with the name of individuals such as John and Paul. Further information on this can be found in Jewish literature concerning proselyte baptism where it indicates his baptism required attestation by witnesses in whose name he was immersed.

4. The immersion candidate was not touched by the baptizer in Jesus' day. Because Leviticus 15:16 says "He shall wash all his flesh in the water," Judaism stresses that the entire body must come in contact with the water of the mikveh. To insure the immersion was valid, no clothing or individuals could touch the candidate. Any such intervention that prevented the water from reaching a part of the body was known as Chatzitzah and rendered the immersion invalid. Although the mikveh was more spiritual than physical, often the bath had two sets of steps, one entering and another leaving so as not to defile what had been purified.

5. The baptismal water (Mikveh) in rabbinic literature was referred to as the womb of the world, and as a convert came out of the water it was considered a new birth separating him from the pagan world. As the convert came out of these waters his status was changed and he was referred to as "a little child just born" or "a child of one day" (Yeb. 22a; 48b; 97b). We see the New Testament using similar Jewish terms as "born anew," "new creation," and "born from above." According to Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum rabbinic literature uses the term "born again" to refer to at least six different occurrences. Note each of these life changing experiences: (a) When a Gentile converts to Judaism. (b) When an individual is crowned king. (c) At age 13 when a Jewish boy chooses to embrace God's covenant and be numbered with the believers. (d) When an individual gets married. (e) When an individual becomes a rabbi. (f) When an individual becomes the head of a rabbinical school.

6. Jewish law requires at least three witnesses made up of qualified leaders to be present for certain immersions (Yebam 47b). Ordinarily a member of the Sanhedrin performed the act of observing the proselytes immersion, but in case of necessity others could do it. Secret baptism, or where only the mother brought a child, was not acknowledged.

Matthew ch 3:
[5] Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,
[6] And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

Mark ch 1:
[4] John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

[5] And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

John ch 3:
[22] After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.
[23] And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.

[26] And they came unto John, and said unto him, Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold, the same baptizeth, and all men come to him.

John ch 4:
[1] When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
[2] (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)

Acts ch 1:
[5] For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.

Acts ch 8:
[38] And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

The Bible shows that baptism is an act done BY one person TO another. The Bible clearly rules out "self baptism". Nobody in the Bible was told to "baptise thyself". Nobody came to John so he could "witness" them baptizing themselves. Jesus did not come to John so John could witness Christ's baptism. Jesus, and the people, came to be baptized BY John.

Jesus' disciples were baptizing people, not watching or witnessing them baptize themselves. The eunuch was baptized BY Philip. Philip did not just observe the eunuch baptizing himself, he actually baptized the eunuch.

Baptize, as a Greek word, literally means to immerse, or submerge, ie DUNK. If John dunked, or submerged, or immersed someone, that means just what it says: HE did it TO the person. They did not immerse themselves, as in typical Jewish mikvas.

When Jesus washed the disciples' feet, He did not hand them a bowl and a towel and say "Git 'r done!" as if they were to wash their own feet. No, He actually washed their feet, meaning He did it TO them. NOBODY is so foolish as to think the statement "and He washed their feet" really means "He watched them wash their own feet."

Just so with dunking, immersing, submerging, aka baptising. John did it to others. That is, John submerged, or dunked, people under water. Jesus' apostles did likewise, they dunked people under water.

If people were baptizing themselves, then neither John nor the apostles nor Philip baptized anyone. But the Bible says they did. They immersed people. How do you dunk somebody under water if you don't physically push them under, or lay them down into and under the water, or some such thing?

How can words have any meaning at all, if "he immersed him" really means "he watched him immerse himself"?

So then, the Bible teaches baptism is an act performed BY one person ON another person.

"Biblical doctrine" means "taught in the Bible." The Bible NOWHERE teaches self immersion as baptism, rather it teaches the opposite, that people do not baptize themselves but are baptized by others.

Therefore self immersion in response to the gospel is unbiblical.

The customs of the Pharisees do not determine how people are baptized into Christ. We aren't Jews, we are not Pharisees, we do not follow their doctrine. We are Christians, we follow the teaching of Christ and His apostles laid out in the Bible.

The Bible predates ANY and ALL Rabbinic writings, it has historic primacy over the Talmud and traditions of the Pharisees. It proves that conversion to both John's message and Christ's gospel are represented by having a disciple baptize (dunk, immerse) the convert in water. What the Pharisees do or did is of no consequence.

Rabbinic tradition (per your article) practices triple immersion, as does the Eastern Orthodox catholic churches. This is further evidence that Rabbinic Judaism has borrowed heavily from Eastern (catholic/orthodox) Christianity. Just like the so called "afikomen" ritual of the Talmudic Pesach Seder (a medieval borrowing of the Eucharistic Paschal bread), some of the melodies used in synagogue cantillation, the kippa/yarmulka (a reaction to medieval tonsuring of catholic clerics), many elements of the typical shabbat synagogue service, etc etc.

We practice apostolic Christianity, not Rabbinic Judaism.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

When Jesus washed the disciples' feet, He did not hand them a bowl and a towel and say "Git 'r done!" as if they were to wash their own feet. No, He actually washed their feet, meaning He did it TO them. NOBODY is so foolish as to think the statement "and He washed their feet" really means "He watched them wash their own feet."

I bet you have no idea how the above had me laughing so loud that I almost woke up the house.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I bet you have no idea how the above had me laughing so loud that I almost woke up the house.

lol

I dunno, it just seems crystal clear to me. I believe Acts 22:16 proves the person being baptized must have faith in Christ, and is to call upon the Lord's name as part of their baptism. That it somehow supports self immersion never crossed my mind.

I was self immersed by triple immersion as I mentioned. Why then did God send apostolics my way shortly afterwards, in answer to my prayer? Why did I, upon seeing Acts 2:38, Isaiah 9:6, and Matthew 28:19, immediately recognise the Spirit telling me "this is the Way, walk in it"?

This promotion of self immersion seems to be coming from one of two things: either a desire to be independent and unique (cool and hip), or an over-fascination with Jewish traditions.

What next, nude baptisms?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

What next, nude baptisms?

The feet are nude when Jesus washed them.

Hey!

Matter of fact so was Jesus!

He was just wearing a towel?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

It looks like you are hanging onto Acts 22:16 in hopes that it is the verse which proves your case hands down.

I haven't tried to make a case for self-immersion without witnesses from Acts 22:16. I have only made the case, regarding Acts 22:16, that we can't make any assumptions as to how Paul was baptized, since it doesn't read one way or another.

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.

I didn't say anything is proven by Acts 2 and the 3,000 except to say that because the text doesn't say, we can't make a claim in either direction.

Personally, I think the Apostles were present, in the water with them, performing the baptisms, but since it doesn't actually read that way, in the context of how it reads, it doesn't matter what I think.

You have also ignored the offerings by Brother Burk (especially historic evidence) how mikva were witnessed.

Not so. I even quoted and commented on one of his posts relating to just that. See response #136 on page 14. If anything, what he was shared helps prove the idea that another person did not have to do the actual immersing (just be present as a witness) in order for the immersing to be considered legit (whereas others are arguing that ALL immersing have to be literally done by one upon another in order for it to be legit).

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.

Mikveh is mikveh, whether it's a daily washing according to Torah ordinance or an immersion into Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Mikveh is not limited to Old Testament concepts only. Note Hebrews 6:2, where the Greek word means washings, as translated later in Hebrews 9:10 (See also Mark 7:4 and 8). So, while it's the Greek word baptismos, obviously related to baptism, it's also plural, indicating there was more than one kind. No Jew reading Hebrews would have thought the author meant anything other than mikveh when reading the text.

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?

Demanding fruits meet for repentance doesn't mean that John demanded he personally immerse them with his own hands in order for it to be legit. As TK showed in an earlier post, all parts of the body needed to touch the water and no first century Jew would have been touched while immersing himself during mikveh, including John's.

So, if someone showed up to the Jordan and John wasn't present at the time and they immersed himself, it's not like John would have freaked out on them later if he found out.

But then again, who knows, since we don't have any evidence for or against any of this speculation.

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?

I never said all immersions are self-administered and done alone. In response #129 on page 13, I wrote the following:

For the record, I am not against the idea of a person being present, or even of having someone perform an immersion in the name of Jesus Christ. It is the Biblically prescribed method. This is how I was immersed, and this is how I have always performed a baptism.

You quoted this in the very next response (#130).

So, as you can see, I don't advocate for any normal reason that a person should go off and baptize themselves. I have only made the case that Acts 22:16 may indicate that Paul went and baptized himself, possibly alone, since the Greek grammar makes it clear that Ananias instructed him to "get yourself baptized". The parallel passage in Acts 9:18 reads Paul got up after receiving his sight and was baptized. It doesn't say Ananias or anyone else did it. It doesn't say where it was done or if anyone else was even present.

This is all I am trying to say. We have one clear case of uncertainty in regards to one person and how they were baptized. This uncertainty may allow, in particular circumstances, for a self-immersion done alone.

It may not. Hence my use of the word "may".

I have written nothing in stone. I am only proving that not every instance of water baptism in the Bible shows how it was done vis a vis that another person was present and performed the immersion.

No more, no less.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Votivesoul, what about the posting concerning a baptism where the minister performing the baptism and the neophyte creating some sort of special bond? Is that some placebo effect caused by some self induced emotional psychobabble? Or is it Biblical?

Neither, it's merely human nature. I experienced the birth of my children in the room. This was something that I experienced and it moved me and bonded me in a unique way to them. I've also experienced people receiving new birth, quite literally in my arms. It's an experience that moved me and bonded me in a unique way to them.

Surely you've had unique experiences with only certain persons in the church that created a bond that doesn't exist with others who weren't a part of the experience?

I have never felt this way myself, because everyone in the church family I have a special bond with regardless of who was baptized by me or some other minister, but maybe since you brought this up in another thread and it is your experience you can enlighten me on this issue.

Maybe Mike can too, since he's the one who brought it up?

Because if people could just climb in a bathtub or kiddie pool and shout baptize me Jesus! Then that whole special bonding thing is hooey.

Point missed.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

lol

I dunno, it just seems crystal clear to me. I believe Acts 22:16 proves the person being baptized must have faith in Christ, and is to call upon the Lord's name as part of their baptism. That it somehow supports self immersion never crossed my mind.

I was self immersed by triple immersion as I mentioned. Why then did God send apostolics my way shortly afterwards, in answer to my prayer? Why did I, upon seeing Acts 2:38, Isaiah 9:6, and Matthew 28:19, immediately recognise the Spirit telling me "this is the Way, walk in it"?

How many times did you need to be immersed in the name of Jesus Christ before Jesus heard your prayer and knowing you had called upon Him in faith, decided to remit your sins?

I am not here to question your experience. Whatever you felt was right at the time is okay with me. I won't undercut it at all. But maybe you felt you needed to be re-immersed in the name of Jesus by the Apostolic people God ran you into because, as a matter of personal faith, you felt your previous self-immersion was unsanctioned by Christ?

If so, does that remove Christ's sanction from any and all self-immersions? How would you go about proving that?

This promotion of self immersion seems to be coming from one of two things: either a desire to be independent and unique (cool and hip), or an over-fascination with Jewish traditions.

For the record, I am not and do not promote self-immersion, as I have said three times now. I am not interested in independence from the Body, to be "cool and hip", or because I have an "over-fascination with Jewish traditions".

I make my case for uncertainty from Acts 22:16.

The fact is no one can prove from the Holy Scriptures who immersed Paul. And that fact has to leave the door open for various possibilities, any of which, potentially, are legit in the eyes of Christ.

[votivesoul]

...or because I have an "over-fascination with Jewish traditions".

And by the way, mikveh isn't merely Jewish tradition. It's Word of God commandment from the Father. Jesus Himself submitted to it. He would not have been allowed to enter the Temple property until He had ritually submersed Himself into mikveh mayim.