In the past couple of days, I was challenged on my posted article of January 4th. This fellow, a “pastor” no less, saw fit to point out to me in a popular internet forum, that I didn’t know what I was talking about. I was misinformed... I failed to note certain facts [albeit facts crafted by men]... and that I better stick to my conclusion to only follow the Word? Excuse me sir... I was following the Word of God... precisely! (2 Timothy 2:15-16) Needless to say, I was greatly disturbed by the unfounded comments from someone we would all assume knows what the Bible teaches.
Here’s his beef –– He said I was all wrong about baptism being only by immersion and proof of my error was that [his denominations manual] says that Philip poured water on the head of the Ethiopian to baptize him. He said there are other, [more than one], modes of baptism authorized in Scripture. The source of his belief that a “pouring mode of baptism” is Biblical, comes from the teachings found in his denominations “manual”, not come from Scripture.
His comments reinforce exactly what I described in the January 4th article... he is relying on the "traditions" of man to defend his position on baptism, not the truth of Scripture. Well, maybe other people will react in a similar manner to what I said. I can understand that... no one likes to be told that the religion they practice might be teaching in error. No one wants to come face-to-face with the realization that what they’ve been taught all their lives might not be based on the “authority of God” but on the distorted and deceptive authority of men. That’s not easy for anyone to accept. But truth is just that, truth. And sometimes it hurts to be confronted with evidence that rocks the foundations of your belief system.
Now... let’s read what the Bible says about the events surrounding the baptism of the Ethiopian Eunuch...
Acts 8:36-39... 36 As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?” 37 Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” 38 And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him. 39 When they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord suddenly took Philip away, and the eunuch did not see him again, but went on his way rejoicing.
Some religious traditions think that Philip used a small amount of water drawn from the larger body alongside the road and poured it over the head of the Ethiopian to baptize him. Okay, is that what you just read in verse 38??? No it is not. The water used to baptize the Ethiopian was a body of water they came to as they traveled along the road. Philip and the Ethiopian got out of the chariot and went down into the water, because it was deep enough to allow for complete bodily immersion. Other Bible examples also confirm that people who were baptized “went to the water.” (See John 3:23; Mark 1:9; Acts 10: 47-48)
If pouring was the mode of the Ethiopian’s baptism, there would have been no need for Scripture to reference “a body of water” appropriate for the intended purpose of a baptism. Philip could not baptize the Eunuch until a body of water was found that could satisfy the requirement of total bodily immersion. If pouring was an authorized baptismal mode, Philip at any time during their journey could have simply used a small amount of water from the water skins [jugs] they surely carried with them in the chariot, and poured it on the head of the Eunuch. But that’s not what happened.
Dictionaries of the Bible define the english word baptize as coming from the Greek word "baptizo" which means to "immerse." Thayer's lexicon on BAPTIZO says: "to dip, immerse, submerge." Many other dictionaries showing the basic, root meaning of the Bible word from which baptize is translated say the same... it means to "immerse."
In the New Testament, the Biblical command of baptism always means to immerse. Consider this reasoning... if Jesus had wanted to say “pour”, He would have used the Greek word ekcheo – which means to “pour out.” If Jesus had desired to say sprinkle, He would have used the word rantizo, which means “to sprinkle.” Had Jesus wanted to authorize these additional modes or forms of baptism, the Koine Greek words, the primary language in which the New Testament was first written, were available to Him. But instead... He chose the word – baptizo, which never means sprinkle or pour.
The Biblical word for "baptism" means immersion, not sprinkling or pouring. Regardless of what many men or a single man says about baptism, this is a matter of who's AUTHORITY will you abide by... God's TRUTH or the Satanically inspired distortions of men? Give that some careful consideration before you reject the notion that you may indeed be a “willing pawn” of the greatest deceiver in the universe! Rejecting the clear truth of Scripture, i.e. God’s Authority, in favor of what imperfect flawed men contrive, is being just that... a pawn of Satan!
Immersion, submerging a person under the water, fits the Biblical description of baptism. Sprinkling and pouring do not fit. No matter how hard you try to make those modes exist in the Bible, they’re simply not there.
This is not the end of this discussion on baptism. There is much more evidence that amplifies the meaning of baptism and why only complete immersion is God’s approved way of becoming “united with Christ.”
