Greek words pertaining to 'baptism'

[Stephen]

Greetings in Christ,
I am currently in a discussion with some protestant friends who are challenging me to

1. provide evidence in the New Testament that the original apostles received a water baptism.

2. They are also saying that full immersion is not implied in the New Testament based on these statements from Dr. Jay E. Adams "The meaning and mode of Baptism":

Wrong translations in Mark 1:9-10 and Acts 8:38-39

None of the greek prepositions EK, APO, EIS, and EN used in these passages ever carry the meanings of 'down into' or 'up out of' or 'from under'. If so then the the prepositions ANO and KATA would be used. The immersionists think that since Christ and the eunuch and Philip all went into the water and came out of the water, that this somehow implies immersion.

This does not necessarily imply immersion. The words EIS and EK do mean "into" and "out of". BUT they also have the meanings of "to", "toward", or "unto", AND "from, away from" respectively. And there is little doubt from the evidence that they should be translated "to" and "from". In the case of Christ's baptism EUS is NOT used. In Mark's account EK is used, but in Matthew, APO. While EK can mean "away from" as well as "out of," APO can NOT mean "out of", but only "away from". Thus from the parallel accounts, it is certain that Mark used EK in the sense of APO in this instance. Thus matthew and Mark meant to say he 'WENT AWAY FROM" the water.

In the case of Philip and the eunuch the same answer applies. However, this observation should be added: EIS, used in Acts 8:38 may mean "unto", "to", "toward"; "both went down to the water". EIS occurs eleven times in Acts 8, and only once is it translated (probably mistranslated) "INTO" (vs. 38).


Any help in rebutting these statements would be welcomed.

[Ken McRae]

1. provide evidence in the New Testament that the original apostles received a water baptism.

"Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost. And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized." ~ Acts 9:17-18

Personally, I think this single text is good enough to carry it for you, as the "Pauline" revelation is very crystal clear that there is only one way to become a living member of Christ's Body, and that is through the holy mystery (sacrament) of Baptism:

"After that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." (Titus 3:4-5)

Note that St. Paul says "saved us" and not "saved you", thus iimplying that all the Apostles were saved in the same manner as us, by holy baptism. See First Peter 3:21 - "Baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Do you see it? St. Peter says "Baptism doth also now save us;" he says "us", not "you", thus implying that he received the sacrament of holy baptism as well.

And St. Paul is very clear about this mystery in Romans 6:3 - "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?" Now, when do you think the apostle's were baptized into Christ? According to holy Tradition, and the clear teaching of holy Scripture, it was when they received the sacrament of holy Baptism! This is abundantly clear at the very least from several places, but perhaps we'll leave that for later.

St. Augustine of Hippo On the Apostolic Tradition of Holy Baptism

The Christians of Carthage have an excellent name for the sacraments, when they say that baptism is nothing else than "salvation," and the sacrament of the body of Christ nothing else than "life." Whence, however, was this derived, but from that primitive, as I suppose, and apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ maintain it to be an inherent principle, that without baptism and partaking of the supper of the Lord it is impossible for any man to attain either to the kingdom of God or to salvation and everlasting life? So much also does Scripture testify, according to the words which we already quoted. For wherein does their opinion, who designate baptism by the term salvation, differ from what is written: "He saved us by the washing of regeneration?" or from Peter's statement: "The like figure where-unto even baptism doth also now save us?" And what else do they say who call the sacrament of the Lord's Supper life, than that which is written: "I am the living bread which came down from heaven;" and "The bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world;" and "Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye shall have no life in you?" If, therefore, as so many and such divine witnesses agree, neither salvation nor eternal life can be hoped for by any man without baptism and the Lord's body and blood, it is vain to promise these blessings to infants without them. (Quoted from Chapter 34 of his First Book On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of Infants (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15011.htm).)

[Ken McRae]

St. Augustine of Hippo On the Apostolic Tradition of Holy Baptism

"If, therefore, as so many and such divine witnesses agree, neither salvation nor eternal life can be hoped for by any man without baptism and the Lord's body and blood, it is vain to promise these blessings to infants without them."

On a personal note, this part of Blessed Augustine's teaching is very hard for me, as my wife and I suffered three miscarriages; and I've often been tormented by the thought that my children are now lost in eternal darkness. And this only because of my own great sinfulness! For when we present our children to God, as infants, in holy Baptism, our faith is accepted as their faith. But what does three miscarriages say about my faith? It seems to say something, and most probably that it was not "true" faith. May the Lord pity me and deliver me from the sin of being "faithless"!

[Ken McRae]

2. They are also saying that full immersion is not implied in the New Testament based on these statements from Dr. Jay E. Adams' 'The meaning and mode of Baptism' ... etc. "The immersionists think that since Christ and the eunuch and Philip all went into the water and came out of the water, that this somehow implies immersion ... etc." Any help in rebutting these statements would be welcomed.

Stephen,

Try to avoid these kinds of futile debates with the Sola Scripturists. No matter what you say to them, if it does not square with their "private" spin on the holy Scriptures, they'll not accept it. Now, from the little I understand about the Presbyterian view of baptism, it does not deny the validity of full immersion, but defends baptism by pouring and sprinkling. Now, all three of these different modes were accepted by the pre-Schism Church, and I have never heard of an Orthodox bishop denying the validity of a Western baptism on the basis of it not being a "full" immersion.

However, it is important for you to be clear that the Orthodox Church never approaches such questions from a standpoint of "Scripture Alone"! The Bible is viewed as merely one half, (though perhaps the most important half,) of one Holy Tradition. So, when approaching such a question, it will seek to examine the Scriptural evidence in the fullest light of Patristic tradition and what the holy Fathers have handed down to us; for the Spirit of Truth speaks to us through the pure hearts and lives of the holy fathers, martyrs, and saints of the Church. To deny this is a great sin!

[Ken McRae]

St. Augustine of Hippo On the Apostolic Tradition of Holy Baptism

The Christians of Carthage have an excellent name for the sacraments, when they say that baptism is nothing else than "salvation," and the sacrament of the body of Christ nothing else than "life." Whence, however, was this derived, but from that primitive, as I suppose, and apostolic tradition, by which the Churches of Christ maintain it to be an inherent principle ... etc.

A quick online search turned up the following, which lends some support to my last post, regarding the ancient Church approving all three modes of holy baptism:-

"The General Mode of Baptism of the Apostles (http://www.catholicapologetics.net/wsy-17-10) and others in the early Church was by immersion, but not exclusively so.

"Immersion was the common practice in the Catholic Church for many centuries. But convenience prompted the Latin division of the Church to use other modes, modes that were practiced in the early centuries. When St. Peter baptised 8000 converts in two days (Acts 2:41; 4:4), there is no reasonable ground for assuming that he immersed them. The topography of the Holy Land proves that there is not water enough in the brook Kedron, during the season when Peter discoursed, to immerse anyone. The Jordan was twenty miles from the place. Epistle 75 of St. Cyprian, written in 254 A.D., tells of "clinical" baptism, as does the Ecclesiastical History written by Eusebius tell of the same kind of baptism, being administered to Novatian in the third century. Tertullian describes baptism as "a sprinkling with any kind of water" (De. Bapt., c. 6). St Augustine says that baptism forgives sins even if the water "merely sprinkles the child ever so slightly" (In Joan, 80, 3). Eusebius tells us that invalids are to be baptised "by the pouring of water." (Hist. Ecc, 6, 43)

"The ancient baptistries seen today in St. John Lateran, the foremost Church in Rome; in some of the churches in Parma, Pisa, Poitiers, and Florence, Italy; also in Cranbrook, Kent, England, are evidences of baptism by immersion in the past by the Catholic Church. On the other hand, baptismal fonts in the catacombs, and in ancient paintings, prove without a question of doubt that sprinkling and pouring must have also been the mode long before the baptistries named were built.

"Immersion is the process today in the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church, in accord with the practices of Christianity in its infancy, declared that there are three modes of baptism, immersion, pouring and sprinkling, according to the particular part of the Church, and that each one of them is valid. In the Latin rite, pouring is the mode enjoined, it being best for baptism in prisons, hospitals, in the icy North, on the deserts, on the battlefield where immersion is impossible, as well as under normal conditions. If a convert from any other church is proved to have been properly baptised by immersion or sprinkling, he is not required to be rebaptised even conditionally."

[Ken McRae]

And St. Paul is very clear about this mystery in Romans 6:3 - "Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?" Now, when do you think the apostle's were baptized into Christ? According to holy Tradition, and the clear teaching of holy Scripture, it was when they received the sacrament of holy Baptism! This is abundantly clear ... etc.

Please forgive me for making another post on this, rather than just editing (adding) it into one of the previous ones; but as most of you know, I do a lot of post editing, and that's partially to try and avoid creating a string of posts like I've just done in this thread. The problem is that when I post something, it lingers in my mind and I continue to think about it for a long time after; and as is often the case, something comes to mind that I either had forgotten or neglected to include in my previous post.

What to do then? Do I edit my last post on the topic, to include it, or make a new post? My habit in the past has been to alter my original post to include these new "after-thoughts", but lately I find myself making "a string" of posts to avoid this. Still, because I'm not a good "proof-reader" and because I still have'nt figured out how to use the spelling-checker in this forum, I often end up "editing" my posts anyway.

But what I want to add to the above is this: In Romans 6:3, it is clearly implied by St. Paul that the mystery of holy baptism is the mystery of being baptized into Christ; and that there is no one who is in Christ, apostle or otherwise, who has arrived there by any means other than through holy baptism.

Now, with regard to the details, like who can administer baptism, can it be self-administered, can it be administered without water, but substituting fire, blood or tears in place of blessed holy water, it would be very helpful to hear from some Orthodox priests. Scripture is clear that the penitent thief on the cross did not receive a "traditional" baptism, but I cannot recall ever reading anything, whether Orthodox or Catholic, that claimed he was "saved without baptism".

I know the Catholic Church permits laymen to administer holy baptism in some special cases; as in the case of imminent death and no time to wait for a priest. I've also read in the past, (but do not have the documentation ready at hand,) that in the Latin Rite, blood and tears are accepted in some special cases as suitable in the absence of blessed holy water.

[Father David Moser]

Remember Theophilus, that St Augustine is revered on account of his repentance. He is not considered to be a "Father" or "teacher" of the Church. His theological writings (such as the one you cite) are flawed and need to be considered with a great deal of care.

Leave the fate of your lost children in the hands of God. In His infinite mercy and compassion, He will not abandon them but will provide for them the means of salvation, even that which you were unable to provide them due to the circumstances of the moment.

Fr David Moser

[Father David Moser]

Now, with regard to the details, like who can administer baptism, can it be self-administered,

No, baptism cannot be self administered - one cannot "give" what one does not have (that is the new life in Christ)


can it be administered without water, but substituting fire, blood or tears in place of blessed holy water,

Certainly many of the martyrs, including the thief on the cross, are counted to have received baptism in their own blood. But this is not a "norm" nor is it codified anywhere.


I know the Catholic Church permits laymen to administer holy baptism in some special cases; as in the case of imminent death and no time to wait for a priest.

The same is true in the Orthodox Church. Any Orthodox Christian can give baptism in an emergency. As soon as possible, the priest is then called and the baptism is completed by the reading of the prayers and the sacrament of chrismation - but he baptism itself is not - indeed cannot be - repeated.


Fr David Moser

[Ken McRae]

Many thanks, Fr. David, for the word of consolation, which is well taken; and for shedding light on the other questions. That's very helpful and I appreciate it! I'm going through a process of having to "unlearn" some things, as you can see, which includes approaching the writings of Augustine with caution! Still, the devil will come, and I must learn to stand my ground. I'll fall, I know, but it is my firm intent to keep rising and fighting back, by the Lord's Divine Grace!

I've mentioned in another thread that I feel "partial" (or attracted) to the view of Universal Salvation expressed in Sts. Gregory of Nyssa and Isaac of Syria; and I think that might be attributed, in part, to what I perceive as the harshness of Augustine, combined with my own personal crisis (of which I've spoken), which occured very shortly after the loss of my three children.

So, Stephen, forgive me for saying, but the principle of Sola Scriptura exalts the private judgment or reason of individuals to the position or status of the 'final authority'. That is to say, this principle deludes the individual into thinking he has not just the freedom but a God-given right to reject all the Church's Ecumenical Councils, and the universal fullness of Her Wisdom, on the basis of the authority of his own "private" interpretation of Scripture.

And he argues that such is his inherent right to do so, according to the dictates of his own "Spirit-directed" conscience! Well, it may be "Spirit-directed" in the rejection of holy Tradition, but the spirit leading him to do that is not of Christ. I mean, just look at how much Protestants have subtracted from holy Tradition: Some dumped five sacraments; the Plymouth Brethren dumped six; and still others dumped them all! Now, what kind of fruit is that: Good or bad? They truly give new meaning to 'minimalistic'!

Of course the Sola Scripturist tries to say the final authority is the Spirit of Christ Himself speaking in the Scriptures. Yes, but he (the SS) cannot deny that he believes he's wiser than all the saints, and all the holy fathers and and all the holy Councils combined! And why does he think so? Because that is both the dogmatic and practical end of Sola Scriptura! But if he is willing to listen, with a humble and contrite mind, then let him examine carefully his Sola Scriptura mindset first; and only if he is prepared to surrender that should you proceed any further, but with caution!

[Ken McRae]

No, baptism cannot be self administered - one cannot "give" what one does not have (that is the new life in Christ).

hi there Stephen ~ guess what? I owe you an apology, as I just discovered you're Orthodox. It did'nt dawn on me to check your profile 'til now; I can be a little slow at times to check things like that, and start to run off without knowing all the facts. Turns out I was preaching to the choir, so-to-speak! :)

All I can think is that maybe a Protestant guest reading along must have needed something I said. Anyway, I apologize for that! I should inform this guest, though, that I edited my last post to clarify and expand a few thoughts. I was tempted to edit it again to add this to it, but opted to lenghten "the string" by one more. (I don't know; looks like you caught me on a "talkative" day, I guess!)

And as I was reflecting on what Fr. David had posted, I was hoping that our Protestant visitors picked up on the significance of his words: "Baptism cannot be self-administered." It is critical for them to realize that the same principle applies to apostolic succession. They cannot give what they have never possessed!

The Scriptures are very clear that a special grace is given with Holy Orders to act as God's true ministers of reconciliation. And without this apostolic and sacramental grace, received through the physical laying on of hands and imparting of the Spirit of Christ, (from those who have it to give,) they go out in vain to labor, having never truly received the blessing of God to do so!

[Stephen]

Thanks all for the great information. I am still interested in knowing if what this person asserts concerning the Greek prepositions mentioned in the first post.

Anybody familar with Biblical Greek who can comment on this item?