Hello Matthew - I'm a reformed baptist and I have no trouble with your arguments and conclusions. Sounds generally good to me. Thanks, as always, for your excellent podcasts.

Thank you for this, Matthew. I am a Calvinistic credobaptist who is in the midst of studying this topic and what you say here regarding pouring jibes with my studies in Hodge's Systematic Theology and the Greek text. I am still not a paedobaptist but I DO see that pouring is a fully acceptable mode with plenty of Biblical cred as you've shown. I would suggest that Christ's baptism may have been by immersion due to the possible connection between John's baptism and that of the Essenes and that of Gentile proselyte (mikveh) baptisms. However I do cheerfully agree with you that the Scriptures do not expressly say that was the case. I suspect that was the Holy Spirit's design since God's people around the world find themselves in environments where the availability of water varies. Thank you for the clear, cogent, and consistent exposition of Biblical truth!

Matt presented a strong, Scriptural case for baptism by pouring. Well done. He was spot on regarding the incorrect inferences made on those "gotcha" verses by immersionists. At the risk of getting a little off topic, however, while listening it struck me that there's a bit of "pots & kettles" in that paedobaptist make the same kind of inferences regarding examples of baptism in the New Testament supposedly including infants. One example is the Acts 16 passage about the Philippian jailer "and all his family" being baptized (v. 33), where it's declared that the "household" (v. 31) likely included infants; this despite the passage saying that "the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house," implying understandability by each member (v. 32). Also, the fact that "the entire household" rejoiced at his conversion would likely not have included infants incapable of understanding what transpired. It's easy for all of us, myself especially, to spot false inferences from others, so let's strive to do away with them across the board.

Mr. Everhard, although we have this difference regarding baptism: Immersion of a born again person versus pouring water on the babies of the congregation: I still recognize you as a brother in the Lord and I greatly appreciate your teachings in other areas and we have the essential in common: Salvation by faith in the sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ on the cross and that we needed the new birth in Him to be saved. My wife and I go to an evangelical baptist church in Quebec province, Canada. (French speaking).

The same thing in french : Mr. Everhard, malgré que nous avons cette différence au sujet du baptême : Immersion d'une personne née de nouveau versus verser de l'eau sur les bébés de la congrégation : Je vous reconnais quand même comme étant un frère dans le Seigneur et j'apprécie beaucoup vos enseignements dans les autres domaines et avons en commun l'essentiel : Le salut par la foi en le sacrifice de notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ à la croix et qu'il nous a fallu la nouvelle naissance en Lui pour être sauvé.

Thank you for this.❤

Thank you, Matt for this study. Good to know where some of these traditions and ideas come from. Good to have a good well-rounded look at traditions and why we do, what we do.

Thank you brother Matthew , I’ll need to look more closely into that .

Former SBC baptist here, now PCA member and have baptized my children in the PCA by pouring, I spend several years praying and studying this, a book that greatly helped me was William The Baptist. Check it out if you are questioning things. The view of baptism is downward from God bot the baptist way upward from man.

In 1Cor.10, the crossing of the Red Sea is presented as typical of Christian baptism. In the original event who crossed over on dry ground, (under the cloud 🌧️) and who was immersed ? Just asking.

My former church (sadly lost during Covid) did the baptizing babies thing. They just dripped a bit of water onto the child's head. That's the first time in my life I'd seen babies/very young children baptized. (Outside of the Catholic context.) But they always clearly explained it was not for salvation.

Dr. James W. Dale, a Presbyterian minister, embarked on a scholarly project that proved to be the most exhaustive study ever undertaken on the word "baptism." Aiming at a contextual understanding of the work, Dr. Dale meticulously examined its use in a wide range of historical documents, and his analysis is a masterpiece of lexicographical scholarship. Dr. Dale published his findings in four volumes. “Baptizo: An Inquiry into the Meaning of the Word”

@blchamblisscscp8476

5 ай бұрын

Thanks. I'll have to look Dr. Dale up.

I liked this and I am a Baptist!

Sometimes I wish John the Baptist, was John the Presbyterian, then we wouldn't have to always go through the explanation circles with our Baptist friends

Matthew 3:16 in Greek literally states: "And having been baptized, Jesus immediately came up from the water . . ." In other words, after the baptism had been performed he then came up out of the water is more plausible than any inference that he was immersed in the water.

Great video. I would also conclude that pouring and or sprinkling are the more accurate modes

Matt thanks for sharing. I will have to agree to disagree. But as you said it is best we understand each others position so we can discuss it in Christian charity.

Matt, nice analysis. You almost had me completely convinced until I read the comment from @counteragenda1 about the Mikvah. My take away (from the other meanings of the greek word for baptism and the Paul example) is that pouring is completely acceptable but immersion was also common. In the end it shows that we Christians can become overly dogmatic about details that aren't necessarily there, missing the deeper meaning being expressed.

Could we possibly get a video going over baptism of laity/private baptisms? I've come to accept the Presbyterian view on baptism (and many other things), but I struggle with the end of WCF XXVIII.2

Really appreciated this and found this helpful. Over the last few months my family is studying this topic of baptism and covenant (specifically of the baptism of infants). This question of mode comes up, and I think this makes a really good biblical argument for the mode of pouring. A question I’d be curious if you could answer - is baptism only a covenant sign and seal or is it anything more? I’ve heard some argument for baptism as a continuation of the ceremonial washings rather than that of circumcision (I believe this comes from James Jordan?). Though I’m not familiar enough with this, and most of the reformed confessions point more to a covenant ask view. But I can’t find too many resources on this and am a little curious

Thanks for the video pastor. May I ask - is there a difference between sprinkling and pouring?

Brother this was excellent! Have you ever had a congregant ask you to immerse them? What do you do in that situation? There are some PCA churches who make accomodations for it, but wondering if you would try and pursuade them and if that didn't work, refer them to a baptist church? Or would you just do it?

Westminster Larger Catechism on Question 165 uses 1 Cor. 15:29 to say that baptism is “a sign and seal of… resurrection unto everlasting life”. Would you agree with this understanding of that verse? Does that have any implication of a required mode of water baptism?

I noticed in the art work that the person being baptized is smaller, maybe a child, but not a baby. Anyone?? If we use the artwork as a point of evidence, why would we not see babies that early in the church? New to reformed here, looking for answers

Very interesting, thank you. Seems to me that Christian baptism should be performed in the same way as the Jews administered baptism because they had a form of baptism, the Essenes and so on, and today they immerse themselves completely in their ritual baths, mikveh. Keeping to the Jewish roots of our faith would keep us from errors, including for the Lord's Supper which was performed during the Passover meal, seder, which is all about symbolism. If Christians had kept that in mind, we wouldn't have had the heresies of transsubstantiation and consubstantiation. This being said, baptism with immersion seems to better represent dying with Jesus and being born again than the other 2 forms. For Philip and the Eunuch, (that's a common argument), we can't know for sure if there were not a bigger body of water then: it's 2,000 years ago after all!

If the meaning of baptism is being described in Romans 6:1-4 and you yourself said that the mode should correspond with the meaning (see 8:22) how does that discount immersion? Baptist friend here that agrees to disagree with you.

@maxxiong

5 ай бұрын

I think Presbyterians simply believe pouring sprinkling and immersion are all acceptable forms of baptism.

@bigtobacco1098

5 ай бұрын

How did they bury people then ??

@dejectedsoup9181

5 ай бұрын

@@bigtobacco1098 I assume you mean if Romans 6 is discussing Christs burial then baptism should included being buried in dirt? I guess then why are you pouring water? It could be oil, or wind, or any other type of the Holy Spirit.

14:30 thank you brother for this charitable explanation. I will say that all of these are descriptive and not prescriptive. As you even said at the start of the video nothing is telling us how to baptize. That at least is an honest assessment. But I would ask the question why was John at the River Jordan to begin with? Or Phillip with the Ethiopian unit? Why would he say look here is water what prevents me from being baptized? Was there not water in the Ethiopians chariot?

Hey pastor Matt, great video. I noticed a slight inconsistency in your argument: When discussing Luke 3, you said that the meaning should correspond to the mode, but when discussing Romans 6, you said that the meaning does not need to correspond to the mode. I'm wondering if there is a better way to phrase things? For the record, I'm also a PCA guy who supports pouring or sprinkling as acceptable modes of baptism.

@Hannodb1961

5 ай бұрын

I'm reformed as well (Reformed Churches of South Africa), and I must say I agree with you. I do find Romans 6:1-4 to be the strongest argument for full emersion - not necessarily as it being the _only_ option, but arguably as the _preferred_ option. Though the rest of his argument makes a very good case for our position.

@PepeLeFunk

5 ай бұрын

I’m a PCA TE, I agree with Pouring, but I also agree that this is Rev. Everhard’s weakest argument. Overall I agree with him, but I think we can concede that immersion is a perfectly acceptable view of baptism if perhaps not the main mode.

That art may be the earliest pictorial depictions of baptism, but the Didache gives us an early description. "Chapter" 7: "And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit." So pouring seems to be seen as a valid but less desirable alternative for ... whatever happens in the "living water" (which apparently is not pouring).

But here’s the key question: three acts of pouring (for each Person of the Triune Name) or one?

I want to go to masters seminary to become a pastor, but I am not dispensational I believe in covenant theology is it still a good seminary to go to to become a pastor?

@HandcraftedByMPD

5 ай бұрын

I would recommend elsewhere. I think it the difference in dispensationalism and covenant theology would come through in quite a few areas of study. I would recommend attending somewhere that holds to one of the historic reformed confessions and holds to a position of covenant theology

@subrje5546

5 ай бұрын

Have you joined or contacted a confessional church? KZread commenters are not the right people to answer this. I'd say join ypur'e local NAPARC church, be a member a while, and then figure it out alongside the session.

@subrje5546

5 ай бұрын

NAPARC - North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council. It includes churches such as the associate reformed presbyterian church (ARP), RPCNA, PCA, OPC ext...

@mr.incredible8080

5 ай бұрын

Thanks guys

Literally every branch of the church and secular history records immersion as the historic method with pouring being a secondary method allowed in special cases. Although I could give you over 100 examples here are but some; Didache 7:1-7 "But concerning baptism, thus shall ye baptize. Having first recited all these things, baptize {in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit} in living (running) water. But if thou hast not living water, then baptize in other water; and if thou art not able in cold, then in warm. But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able; and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before." 1st century. "Baptism itself is a bodily act, because we are immersed in water" Tertullian On Baptism, 7 "I shall begin with baptism. When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel." Tertullian The Chaplet, or De Corona. " Our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, of whom it is less correct to say that He was cleansed by washing than that by the washing of Himself He cleansed all waters, no sooner raised His head from the stream than He received the Holy Ghost." Jerome - The Dialogue Against the Luciferians "The evil spirits seek to overtake you, but you descend into the water and you escape safely" Origen commenting upon the crossing of the Red Sea mentioning New Testament baptism: Homilies on Exodus, V:5 "We imitate the burial of Christ through baptism. For the bodies of those being baptized are as it were buried in water" Basil of Caesarea -On the Holy Spirit, XV:35 "For as he who plunges into the waters and is baptized is surrounded on all sides by the waters, so were they also baptized completely " Cyril of Jerusalem -Catechetical Lectures, XVII:14 “In Baptism are fulfilled the pledges of our covenant with God; burial and death, resurrection and life; and these take place all at once. For when we immerse our heads in the water, the old man is buried as in a tomb below, and wholly sunk forever; then as we raise them again, the new man rises in its stead. As it is easy for us to dip and to lift our heads again, so it is easy for God to bury the old man, and to show forth the new. And this is done thrice, that you may learn that the power of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost fulfills all this. To show that what we say is no conjecture, hear Paul saying, We are buried with Him by Baptism into death: and again, Our old man is crucified with Him: and again, We have been planted together in the likeness of His death." John Chrysostom's Homilies on John 25:2 4th century. "You have asked also, dearest son, what I thought of those who obtain God's grace in sickness and weakness, whether they are to be accounted legitimate Christians, for that they are not to be washed, but sprinkled, with the saving water." Epistles of Cyprian 75:12 "It is safer to baptize by immersion, because this is the more ordinary fashion" The Summa Theologica by St. Thomas Aquinas 13th century. "The priest … naming the child, shall dip it in the water thrice. First dipping the right side: Second the left side: The third time dipping the face towards the font. … If the childe be weak, it shall suffice to pour water upon it." The Book of Common Prayer 15th century. "We are buried with him - alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion" Wesley's notes on Romans 6:4. 18th Century. Even Calvin agrees "They went down into the water. Here we see the rite used among the men of old time in baptism; for they put all the body into the water." John Calvin's commentary on Acts 8:38 “The very word baptize signifies to immerse, and it is certain that immersion was the practice of the primitive church” John Calvin's Institutes, Vol. XI., ch. 15, sec, 49 "After these things came Jesus. It is probable that Christ, when the feast was past, came into that part of Judea which was in the vicinity of the town Enon, which was situated in the tribe of Manasseh. The Evangelist says that there were many waters there, and these were not so abundant in Judea. Now geographers tell us, that these two towns, Enon and Salim, were not far from the confluence of the river Jordan and the brook Jabbok; and they add that Scythopolis was near them. From these words, we may infer that John and Christ administered baptism by plunging the whole body beneath the water" from John Calvin’s commentary on the Gospel of John John 3:22 And Luther too. “On this account I could wish that such as are baptized should be completely immersed into water according to the meaning of the word and the signification of the ordinance . . . as also without doubt it was instituted by Christ” Martin Luther's Works, Vol. II. p. 75, ed. 1551 John 3:23 And John also was baptizing in Ænon near to Salim, because there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized. (Why would it matter if there was much water if they were pouring?) Acts 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. (Why would they have to go anywhere? He could have poured from a waterskin.) The Levitical purifications were washings of the whole body (Num 19:19; see also v. 18; Lev 11:24-28 and following; 17:15; 14:2-8; 15:16-18, 19-24, 25-29, 2-15). That in all these purifications the whole body had to be washed. Leviticus 11:32 & 36 Anything on which any of them falls, when they are dead shall be unclean, whether it is any item of wood or clothing or skin or sack, whatever item it is, in which any work is done, it must be put in water. And it shall be unclean until evening; then it shall be clean... 36 Nevertheless a spring or a cistern, in which there is plenty of water, shall be clean, but whatever touches any such carcass becomes unclean. They would have had to have baths available for this purpose and Jews today still practice Mikveh and the existence of a mikveh is considered so important that a Jewish community is required to construct a mikveh even before building a synagogue, and must go to the extreme of selling Torah scrolls, or even a synagogue if necessary, to provide funding for its construction. Finally I would agree baptize can mean wash, but I must ask you, how much of you is sinful? Only your forehead? I would think as you affirm Total Depravity you would say all of you, then I would say all of you must be washed. When they washed (baptized) the tables and couches they only washed the part that was dirty. Jesus criticized the pharisees for only washing part of the cups and not all of them in Matthew 23:25-26 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also." May God bless you brother.

@bigtobacco1098

5 ай бұрын

Ty for helping prove the point of not being dogmatic about methods...

One of the hardest parts of being Reformed in a Calvinistic-Baptist church is our differences in the meaning of baptism. I can allow for immersion as an acceptable mode, and I agree that new believers should be baptized as commanded in scripture, but the insistence that baptism is our upward/outward identification with Christ rather than God's downward covenantal sign and seal makes things difficult. It's often described as "putting on our Jersey for Christ", as in we just decide one day to wear our "team Jesus" jersey so that everyone can know which side we're rooting for.

@chrisjohnson9542

5 ай бұрын

That is not the reformed baptist view of baptism.

@Mythicregard

5 ай бұрын

​@@chrisjohnson9542What is then?

I'm not going to fuss over the physical methods. The meaning is more important. The part where I am confused is, does this denomination teach that baptism saves a person? I had assumed not. I was hoping this would be addressed here.

@pherrera75

5 ай бұрын

I am a PCA pastor, like Matt. No, we do not believe it saves.

@Yesica1993

5 ай бұрын

Thanks.@@pherrera75

It would not be necessary for Jesus to go into the river if He were simply going to have a sprinkling or pouring Baptism. Also it would likely be mentioned if John were holding a vessel to pour over Him

@MatthewEverhard

5 ай бұрын

That's where water comes from. No tap back then.

@Its_Just_Collin

5 ай бұрын

@MatthewEverhard Brother, first thank you for your reply. Second, I understand that the main source of water was rivers and streams, even before and beyond the first century. I just meant it was not necessary for Him to stand in the middle of the river, He could have stood on the banks to receive the type of Baptism you are referring to.

If it been by pouring why was John the Baptist baptizing IN the Jordan River, and not just ALONG the Jordan?!

@bigtobacco1098

5 ай бұрын

Unnecessary either way... and johns baptism wasn't Christian baptism

One issue this brings up is that in the images depicted it appears to be children being baptised in the water by pouring. So how do we do this to babies? Would we stand the baby up so that its feet are in the water? The images seem to add points to the baptists on the baby front? Perhaps sprinkling was the mode for babies and pouring the mode for children/adults?

@Yesica1993

5 ай бұрын

Oh, goodness, can we not be so obsess over the mechanics of it all? You don't baptize babies in the first place because they can't understand salvation. That is the main point that should be addressed, rather than the physical method of getting the water onto a person!

@JusheisAwesome

5 ай бұрын

That would be a baptist understand of baptism. Baptists baptise to display their faith in God. But a Presbyterian understanding is that baptism is a sign of God's promise to you. The baby would not need to understand because its not a work of man but a work of God and God's covenantal promise to them.

@JusheisAwesome

5 ай бұрын

Also to add to this, in Presbyterianism the efficacy of the baptism is not tied to the moment administered but rather is only applicable via faith.

@bigtobacco1098

5 ай бұрын

​@@Yesica1993biblically, OIKOS baptisms are standard

@daleflix

5 ай бұрын

Many paintings of this period have different sizes of people to show the authority of the larger person and not necessarily the age of the smaller person.

Pastor Matt, how about the case for sprinkling like we see in Numbers 8:7, Ezekiel 36:25 and the end of Isaiah 52? Why not do this podcast advocating for both sprinkling or pouring as opposed to dipping and then also get into the errors of Baptist and nondenominational churches, when it comes to not including children in the covenant Sign, which is a fulfillment of circumcision and their errors when it comes to the form of church government. I can’t understand why the world of Holy Spirit, which supposedly lives inside of these folks, especially the pastors, doesn’t enlighten them. My interaction with Baptist, or the last 30 years, convinces me that their churches are very cult-like, if not even more so by exerting a tremendous amount of control over their members.

I was baptized by immersion. Coming up out of the water was glorious for me. I would not do it any other way. Sprinkling would not have the same meaning for me.

Was Jesus 'sprinkled' or poured upon" by John the Baptist? Mark 1:10 (which you studiously ignored) says: ...and straightway coming UP OUT OF THE WATER, he (Jesus) saw the dove (the HS) descending. Hard to come up out of the water if it's being poured. The (main) point was when Jesus saw the Dove. If Jesus came up out of the water, and climbed up the river bank and then saw the Dove, it would have been stated! It was when when has coming up '...out of the water! You seem to be a 'WordSmith" but wouldn't immersion, by default, encompass sprinkling and pouring. I mean, immersion is the ultimate sprinkling and pouring? Ha! Also, JohnTheBaptist baptized in the Jordan bc '...there was much water there!' JTB seemed to like much water! Ha! ==>>> What I think needs to be clarified is this question: Assuming a person was immersed in a Baptismal ceremony (as opposed to pouring) is that Baptism, in your view, invalid in the eyes of the Lord? ....all comments are IMHO 😀

@bigtobacco1098

5 ай бұрын

What about Stephen and the eunuch???

@PepeLeFunk

5 ай бұрын

This has been addressed. The language here could refer to come up the bank of the river.

@sylvainbrousseau1470

Ай бұрын

@@bigtobacco1098 Le désert pouvait être alors tout juste terminé lors de leur passage en char.

@bigtobacco1098

Ай бұрын

@@sylvainbrousseau1470 I don't speak French... sorry

Are baptistry is filled every week.

I'm sorry, but I don't think this is a great example of proper exegesis For one thing you are talking about the baptism of the Holy Spirit and ceremonial cleansing as if they are synonymous with water baptism. Being baptized with the Holy Spirit and being water baptized are not the same thing. English has it's limitations, especially when translating from as robust a language as Greek. For instance everyone knows there is more than 1 word for "love" in Greek. Each Greek word whether it be Agape, Storge, Phileo, Eros, etc......has a very distinct meaning. We can't just take every single place where the English translators used the word "love" and say they all are talking about the exact same thing. Nor can we take every place where the English translators used the word "baptism" and say they all are talking about the sacrament of water baptism. You admit that the word: βαπτίζω baptizó does indeed mean immersion or submersion......and then say: "except when it doesn't". You then give examples of where that word is used and means something else. Here's the problem. None of the verses you cite actually use the word: βαπτίζω baptizó! Mark 7:4 where it talks about washing the words used are: βαπτίσωνται (baptisōntai) and βαπτισμοὺς (baptismous) Yes, they have the same root word, but you can't just substitute in the root word for every single word. For instance the root of the word "scripture" is "script" it literally means to write something down. It's also the same root for the word: prescription where the doctor writes down what medicine you are supposed to take. If someone who was just learning English came up to me with something they were trying to read and it had the words "scripture" or "prescription" and I told them it just means they are being told to write something down......that would NOT be accurate. We do the same thing when we take various different words from the Greek New Testament and just substitute the root word. The words βαπτίσωνται (baptisōntai) and βαπτισμοὺς (baptismous) may have βαπτίζω baptizó as a root word, but it doesn't mean they ARE the exact same word. You also talk about 1 Corinthians Chapter 10 with Moses being baptized into the sea. Again, totally different word: ἐβαπτίσθησαν (ebaptisthēsan) You successfully demonstrated that it means something different than submersion....but it should...because it's a different word! You also talk about Nebuchadnezzar’s body being bathed with the dew in the Septuagint from Daniel 4:33 and Daniel 5:21, as well as Leviticus 14:6 dipping the one bird inside the blood of the other...but again....NOT ONE OF THOSE uses the word: βαπτίζω baptizó in the Septuagint. You know where the word βαπτίζω baptizó IS actually used in the Bible: (the word that ACTUALLY does mean "submersion") “As for me, I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, and I am not fit to remove His sandals" Matthew 3:11 "John answered, saying to them all, “As for me, I baptize you with water, but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the strap of His sandals;" Luke 3:16 and "John answered them, saying, “I baptize with water, but among you stands One whom you do not know." John 1:26 So, Matthew, Luke and John apparently felt that at least John's baptism by water was by submersion. (Which would include how Jesus was baptized) Now, whether or not that is the prescription for how we are to baptize also, is another matter for discussion...but I think it's disingenuous to suggest that John the Baptist purposely chose the river, and the gospel writers purposely chose a Greek word that specifically means to submerge and suggest that there was no submersion going on. With regard to Paul's baptism. That word being used, is the same one being used to symbolize ceremonial washing in some of the other verses: ἐβαπτίσθη (ebaptisthē) It's entirely possible that the writer of Acts did not mean to infer that Paul was actually water baptized...but instead just got up and ceremonially cleaned himself up from the scales that had just dropped from his eyes. Lastly, you talk about archaeology and show the picture of someone pouring water on someone. If we want to take an honest look at ancient history, why did you not bring up the Didache (which predates those pictures) which clearly not only describes, but also prescribes submersion. It ALLOWS for pouring...but only as a last resort. It clearly says immersion in cold living water (running like a river or stream such as the Jordan) is the preferred mode and method. If there isn't living water, then submersion in cold water is the next best thing. If that isn't available then submersion in warm water is the next best thing...and finally if you don't have enough water to for submersion then pouring is acceptable. Again, I'm not here to argue that pouring is wrong. (Obviously even the Didache said it was acceptable) I'm simply stating that in my humble opinion your arguments weren't very persuasive.

Love you brother! I love your content and watch very frequently. I agree with everything you say here about the mode of baptism. Scripture most definitely supports the pouring of water; there is much evidence, in Scripture, that the first-century Church practiced that mode of baptism. I believe you were rightly critical of the passage in Matthew and concluded that it doesn't specifically say Jesus was immersed into the water. Agreed, John most definitely could have simply poured the water over Jesus' head. I challenge you to also read just as criticality, passages that say, "...and their whole household was baptized", and agree that there is no mention of infants in any of those passages. :) Love you lots too brother! I look forward to your next video.

@MatthewEverhard

5 ай бұрын

Thanks for the kind words my man!

@marktaylor601

5 ай бұрын

@@MatthewEverhard You bet! Every so often I have to travel to my company's office in the Pittsburgh area. If I'm ever there over a weekend I'm going to come visit your Church.

I was sprinkled soon after birth in a PC-USA Church in 1945, so before they went looney. Recently we joined an independant Baptist church and they asked me to be baptised again. I did, and during the baptism, before the act, the pastor asked me if I took Christ as my Lord and Savior, or words to that effect. Then I was immersed. For me, the immersion was more meaningful but there is a lot of difference between being baptized without the question and agreeing to it in front of God and the congregation. So I think adult, knowledgeably being baptized i better. Not that the others are of no consequence, just that the event has more lasting meaning.

@bigtobacco1098

5 ай бұрын

Any rebaptisms in scripture ??

You assume that there was not enough water for the Ethiopian eunuch by looking at a map. That assumes that the topography and weather of 2,000 years ago is exactly the same today. Deserts are known for wadis where water is only present for a very short time. Also, God provided by His direction for Philip to meet the eunuch at the right time and the right place. Would He not also provide water? From the Scriptures you quote from, immersion is the preferred method. However, that may not always be available. If Paul was baptized in a house, it may have been due to the fact that he had lead a task force to arrest Christians in Damascus. He may not have been able to be immersed (the Scripture does not say either way, so it is an assumption either way), but he sought to be obedient to the Lord through baptism.

@toolegittoquit_001

5 ай бұрын

And yet there is nothing in the Scripture to support your reading. And arguing from silence isn’t going to cut it

@Stangy04

5 ай бұрын

@@toolegittoquit_001As someone who has been to the Middle East multiple times to include Israel, I can attest all of Israel isn’t desert; in fact, it has more of a Mediterranean climate especially from Jerusalem to Gaza.

@bigtobacco1098

5 ай бұрын

Yes, in EVERY single case, God provided a way for submersion...

The word baptism or baptizo means to immerse. It also is a picture of being burried and risen. It pictures Christ's death, burial and resurrection and us dying and rising to new life.

@bigtobacco1098

5 ай бұрын

The "death" angle was debunked in the video... it's a modern eisegesis... they didn't bury people like that in those days

@bigtobacco1098

5 ай бұрын

And the root for "baptizo" has several meaning

Non Calvinist non denominational here: we baptize via diving board, Olympic sized swimming pool, lights, smoke, lots of bass on the speaker, fireworks, and then the person is given a cup of coffee afterwards.

@MatthewEverhard

5 ай бұрын

lol. nice! :-)

The testimony of the new covenant is clear that the action is immersion, not sprinkling and pouring. (Acts 8:38-39; Romans 6:4; Colossians 2:12).

@williamnathanael412

5 ай бұрын

It looks like you did not watch the video!

@mikerichards8400

5 ай бұрын

@@williamnathanael412 I simply stated what the "Book" says without traditions and human opinions.

@danielsanchez9891

5 ай бұрын

@@mikerichards8400 The problem though is that to say we need to immerse from these verses uses modern traditions and human opinions. Jesus was buried, but how? The mode of immersion pictures one being lowered into a grave and raised out of it. Jesus was placed inside of a tomb and walked out of it. We assume modern burial methods when we say that the word burial necessitates immersion. The word for baptism, as was said, does not *always* mean immersion, and the linking to the pouring out of the Spirit in passages that discuss baptism make it seem that at the the very least, immersion is not strictly necessary. The didache from the early church allows for immersion and pouring, as do those who are reformed today.

@cheezman9180

5 ай бұрын

I went to check the scriptures you listed. No where does it prescribe or describe baptism by immersion. You would have to read into it quite a bit to come to that conclusion. Also the Acts passage says "they" came up out of the water, so by "they" does it mean they were both immersed? Should the minister be immersing themselves as well? Honestly your comment helps support the video, if anything. Anyway, take care brother! Not looking to offend. Thanks.

@mikerichards8400

5 ай бұрын

@@cheezman9180 the words "baptize" and "baptism" are not translations. They are transliterations from Greek into English. The Greek words BAPTIZO and BAPTISMA mean immersion, submersion, dip, and plunge. The verses I listed definitely require exactly what God demands. Reread the verses. Philip and the Eunuch went "down into the water," and "came up out of the water." Sprinkling and pouring do not require those two things. Immersion does! The other passages say, "buried with him...raised with him." Human traditions and man-made religions and doctrines do exactly what Satan did to Adam and Eve in the garden. They reverse and/or change what God's word says! The passage in Acts 8 does not say Philip immersed himself. It does say Philip immersed the Eunuch.

This is incorrect. Mikvah's were the Jewish baptism structures of the day. We know by pictures that they were deep, structures that you climb into. Today Jews still use them and it has always been a complete immersion, meaning that you are completely immersed into the water. So, listen Jews have a tendency of keeping tradition this tells us a lot about the day Jesus was in. So the First Christians were Jews. Think about it. John the Baptist who grew up understanding that purifying in water was a total immersion experience. All Jews knew this. So it would have been expected in this first century Church that baptism was complete immersion. I mean just look at the old Mikvah's that have been found they are all deep. You do not have a deep structure filled with water if your just going to sprinkle. Look at the Catholics they use a bowl to baptize with as a large baptismal or Mikvah would not be practical. Yet first century Christians were use to the way of the Mikvah. Many people believe there is evidence that John the Baptist was a Nazarene, and that many of the first century Nazarenes were Christians. Nazarene sites have been found and they all have Mikvahs.

@hewziheng4587

5 ай бұрын

If we were to use Jewish practices, then Jesus's baptism by the Jordan river would not be valid because the water in the Mikvah had to be non-moving, still water. The Scripture should be sufficient to resolve this debate (as Christians do believe that Scriptures are sufficient), and I don't think these extra historical facts are needed

@CounterAgenda1

5 ай бұрын

Well that is not exactly correct. Why because many bodies of fresh water are permitted for immersion, (although they would rather you in a structural Mikvah) it depends if the water is only from run off. The Jordan is not all from run off as it has natural springs and there are many places where the water is still: this is permitted. So if you want to get into the weeds on this you need a deep location where you can fully immerse your body and you need still water that is not mainly from rain fall. @@hewziheng4587

@Stangy04

5 ай бұрын

@@hewziheng4587you’re wrong. Mikvah’s water source came from rain and moving spring water using gravity that was constructed within channels throughout the towns. When I visited Magdala (or Migdol), some of the mikvahs that we saw had water in them

@jonathanphelps1886

5 ай бұрын

Wrong not all Jew use Mikvah. The whole idea of Mikvah was a Rabbinical invention in the Talmud. For example Karaite Jews take a Ritual shower and do not use Mikvahs. Karaite Jew reject the authority of Torah She Baal Peh ( Oral Law) and would argue for ritual showers especially when a woman is in a state of Nidah which is the menstruation of a woman. Also Mikvah does not come with the forgiveness of sins in Judaism. I was raised Southern Baptist in the Missouri Ozarks and eventually moved to the Messianic denomination which caused a lot of confusion for me and led me into rejecting Christianity and eventually converting to Conservative Judaism which never fully sat right with me because of the oral law which led me to look into Karaism which only live by the TANAKH. As of about 6 months ago I was on a social media website, where I got into a religious debate with a Christian, who is a very smart man by the end of the conversation I had come back to Christianity. I am currently looking into becoming part of a Presbyterian PCA church. and have been following this content creator for a couple days now and most definitely love the content this creator puts out

@jonathanphelps1886

5 ай бұрын

@@Stangy04exactly right any living body of water is kosher for Mikvah