Bible baptism includes sprinkling or pouring on one's head.

I hope that this will be a fruitful discussion and that all may be spiritually benefitted as a result. My arguments As Con, my goal will be to show that this debate is an example of the proverb from Proverbs 18:17, which teaches, “The first one to plead his cause seems right, Until his neighbor comes and examines him. ” First, let me establish two things. Definition of Bible baptism While baptize, which is the English version of the ancient Greek word baptizó, is sometimes used today to refer to an act of pouring or sprinkling, the lexicons show that such a definition was not used for the Greek word baptizó. The definition that the Dodson dictionary gives for baptizó is “I dip, submerge, but specifically of ceremonial dipping; I baptize. ” According to HELPS Word-studies, baptizó means “properly, ‘submerge’ (Souter); hence, baptize, to immerse (literally, ‘dip under’). … [Baptízo] implies submersion (‘immersion’), in contrast to … antéxomai (‘sprinkle’). ” The NAS Exhaustive Concordance defines it as “to dip, sink. ” Thayer's Greek Lexicon, providing an exhaustive text on the word, agrees with the other terms as well. [1][2] Therefore, whenever we see the word baptize in our English Bibles, a more interchangeable word we can substitute is immerse. Thus, by definition, Bible baptism is immersion, not sprinkling or pouring. Purpose of baptism A question we should ask is, “Why get baptized in the first place? ” The apostle Paul tells us that Christians, “having now been justified by His blood, … shall be saved from wrath through” Christ (Rom. 5:9). The question is, how do we take part in His death and as a result become saved by Him? In the next chapter, Paul has this to say: “Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection” (Rom 6:3–5). Notice that Christians were “buried with [Christ] through baptism into death,” being “united together in the likeness of His death” so that they could “be in the likeness of His resurrection. ” Paul also wrote, “[You were] buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead” (Col. 2:12, emphasis added). Consider the parallel, that in baptism we die and are buried (i. e. , when we go into the water) and are raised (i. e. , when we come up out of the water) with Christ. And considering that baptism by definition is interchangeable with immersion, Paul is actually saying that in immersion we are buried and raised with Christ. Thus, sprinkling or pouring is not sufficient to take part in the Lord’s death, burial, and resurrection, as Paul actually specifies that this is done in immersion. My opponent’s arguments Now I will answer what my opponent has presented. The early church Like Pro pointed out, this doesn’t really show what “Bible baptism” is. Two of the three documents he presented are about 225 years after the church’s establishment in Acts 2 (A. D. 30),[3]—about the distance of time between when the Founding Fathers of the U. S. signed the Declaration of Independence, and the present—hardly a time distance involving people “who may have actually known some of the Apostles. ” The first source Pro cites, while possibly early (or not, as he honestly admitted), contradicts the Bible. The same chapter instructs both the baptist and the baptized to fast for one or two days before the baptism. The Bible instead teaches that sinners were baptized immediately after they were taught the gospel (e. g. , the Philippian Jailer and his family, Acts 16:32–33). The notion that these people taught what the Bible teaches is incorrect, and what they say is irrelevant to the proposition at hand. The Bible’s Reference to Baptism by Immersion Only To answer this objection, see my section “Purpose of baptism. ” Also, my other point shows that by definition, every “biblical quote, verse, paragraph, [or] page that can be given” on baptism does not include sprinkling or pouring. Biblical Reference to Baptism by Sprinkling or Pouring Like Pro said, we both agree that there are things in the Old Testament that were “a shadow of things to come” in the New Testament (c. f. , Col. 2:16–17). However, Pro must show that things in the Old Testament were shadows of the mode of baptism. The prophecy of Ezekiel Pro references Ezekiel 36:24–27 and claims it was fulfilled in Acts 2. Pro failed to show that “[sprinkling] clean water” couldn't simply be a figurative expression, based on the sprinkling of water practiced by the Jews (Num. 19:9–18). First of all, God continues, “Then you shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; you shall be My people, and I will be your God” (v. 28). In other words, God was taking them to stay. In Acts 2, while Jews “from every nation under heaven” came (v. 5), it was not to stay but temporary, in order to celebrate Pentecost. Furthermore, if Pro is right, then sprinkling is really significant in Christianity. I don’t think even immersion received a prophecy! All three of Pro’s historical references, however, reveal that even when people began to apostatize and practice it, sprinkling or pouring was looked at as the exception, not the rule, only to be done in a worst-case scenario. Roman Catholic scholar Bertrand Conway conceded, “Catholics admit that immersion brings out more fully the meaning of the Sacrament … and that for twelve centuries [emphasis mine] it was the common practice. ”[4] Perhaps the best argument is that by definition, Peter said, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized [which means, in the Greek, immersed] in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38). “Then those who gladly received his word were baptized [immersed]; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them” (v. 41). From the foregoing, the prophecy cannot refer to Christians being sprinkled or poured upon. Sanctification Pro brings up that in the Old Testament, blood was sprinkled for sanctification. He then references Hebrews 9:13–14, which compares the sprinkling of this blood to the blood we now have in Christ. Yes, this isn’t comparing the sprinkling of blood practiced in the Old Testament to baptism but to “the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God. ” It was not a shadow of baptism but of the blood of Christ. This also explains why 1 Peter 1:2 uses the expression “sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. ” Nowhere here is water said to be “sprinkled”; only blood is. What represents dying with Christ so that we can take part of His blood and be raised with Him? See my section “Purpose of baptism. ” The Holy Spirit Pro references Acts 2:17–18, which says the Holy Spirit was poured out, and then he says we receive the Holy Spirit when we're baptized (perhaps referring to Acts 2:38). However, receiving the Holy Spirit is different from us being baptized. Furthermore, receiving the Holy Spirit is different from the Holy Spirit being poured out. The pouring of the Holy Spirit, which happened in early Christianity, resulted in “divided tongues, as of fire” (Acts 2:3), and it provided the ability to “speak with other tongues” (v. 4), tongues which the “Jews … from every nation under heaven” recognized (vv. 5–11). This doesn’t happen when Christians “receive the Holy Spirit” as they're baptized. The argument is showed to be flawed. Conclusion Pro hasn't proven the proposition. By definition, it is false. References [1] . http://tinyurl.com... [2] . http://tinyurl.com... [3] . http://tinyurl.com... [4] . http://tinyurl.com...